Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Equipping the next generation: addressing the unmet need for artificial intelligence education at research performing organizations.","authors":"Jeremy Y Ng, Wid Al-Zahraa Al-Khafaji, David Moher","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00250-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00250-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools into higher education is rapidly accelerating, yet the educational ecosystem appears largely unprepared for the scale and speed of adoption. Our recent international survey of over 1,200 university students and postdoctoral fellows in the medical and life sciences found that while more than 80% had used GenAI tools, the vast majority had received no formal training, and many were unaware of any institutional policies governing their use. This gap between adoption and institutional preparedness may pose risks to research integrity if left unaddressed.</p><p><strong>Main body: </strong>Existing research supports a coordinated, evidence-informed approach to AI education in research performing organizations (RPOs), grounded in principles of research integrity, equity, and critical engagement with technology. First, GenAI literacy must be embedded as a core competency in scientific and clinical education, equipping students to critically evaluate tool outputs, recognize hallucination and bias, and understand the distinction between AI-generated inaccuracy and deliberate research misconduct. Second, traditional frameworks for academic integrity would benefit from re-examination. Today, GenAI tools have fundamentally disrupted established notions of authorship, originality, and plagiarism, and the absence of coherent institutional guidance leaves students and educators navigating these questions without support. Third, RPOs must develop clear, transparent, and context-sensitive policies on GenAI use by embedding responsible AI education into curricula, equipping learners not only to use these tools effectively, but to question, verify, and critique their outputs in ways that uphold scientific standards.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RPOs have an urgent responsibility to move beyond reactive responses and toward proactive strategies that uphold scientific standards, promote equity of access, and prepare the next generation of researchers and clinicians to engage with GenAI responsibly and ethically.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13676008/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149208293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'Correcting the record on \"Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study\" Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026;11:49.' Reply.","authors":"Evan D Kharasch, Michael M Todd, Jean-Francois Pittet, William L Lanier","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00255-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00255-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13625434/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149119642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Institutional conflicts of interest in health-related research - a scoping review.","authors":"Alexander Haarmann, Charlotte M Kugler, Hengameh Goodarzi, Alexander Pachanov, Kaethe Goossen, Elie A Akl, Dawid Pieper","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00251-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00251-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) have received less attention than individual COIs in health-related research.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore how institutional COIs arising from affiliation with a healthcare provider have been studied or discussed in the literature on health-research involving humans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review following the JBI guidance and reported it according to PRISMA-ScR. The review included English‑ or German‑language empirical or conceptual publications that addressed institutional COIs -either independently or in conjunction with individual COI - within health‑related research involving humans conducted at institutions that deliver healthcare services. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), and Google Scholar in July 2024. Two reviewers independently screened publications. One reviewer extracted data and another checked it. One author mapped and analysed included papers according to the categories of institutional and individual COIs that they addressed, which another author verified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 48 publications published between 1998 and 2022. The majority (88%; n = 42/48) focused on North America, were empirical (67%; n = 32/48), and referred to institutions such as hospitals and clinics (58%; n = 28/48), or universities and academic institutions (58%; n = 28/48). Most institutional COIs described were linked to health-related industries (79%; n = 38/48). Almost all publications mentioned direct financial institutional COIs (98%; n = 47/48) primarily in relation to receiving gifts, endowments, or grants (94%; n = 45/48). One third of publications (n = 16/48) described indirect financial institutional COIs, most frequently through increasing services (27%; n = 13/48). Direct financial individual COI were represented in 73% (n = 35/48) of publications, and indirect financial individual COIs in 6% (n = 3/48). Half of the publications (52%; n = 25/48) illustrated non-financial COIs, particularly related to prestige and reputation (31%; n = 15/48), or career advancements and professional roles (23%; n = 11/48). All publications acknowledged that institutional COIs can have negative consequences, most frequently due to bias and distortion in the research process (94%; n = 45/48). The vast majority of publications (94%; n = 45/48) offered recommendations for managing COIs, including institutional policies (77%; n = 37/48).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Direct financial COIs dominate the literature on institutional COIs, while indirect or non-financial COIs remain under-researched. Institutional COIs are consistently recognised as problematic and institutional policies are most frequently proposed as means to manage them.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13584590/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148992984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Participants using GenAI in online studies: an overview and recommendations for researchers and reviewers.","authors":"Justus Mann, Jutta Stumpf-Wollersheim","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00247-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00247-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Participants' use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to create responses in online studies can threaten data authenticity and research validity. This issue is particularly pressing in settings where participation is paid for. In response, researchers have begun to develop different approaches to prevent and detect GenAI use by participants.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This comment illustrates the unintended consequences of researchers' measures to prevent and detect participants' GenAI use and aims to help researchers and reviewers better identify the potential consequences of these measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Drawing on current literature, we identify seven different levels of participants' GenAI use, differentiated by increasing degrees of technological sophistication and automation. These levels range on a continuum from the manual operation of GenAI by participants to the employment of automated GenAI agents. We discuss prevention and detection measures corresponding to these levels and how researchers' measures can cause reactions from participants. Specifically, we suggest that extensive measures can trigger an adverse selection mechanism by driving out honest participants and inviting greater sophistication in GenAI use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Instead of engaging in a technological cat-and-mouse game with participants through deterrence, we argue that we should focus on the incentive structure to resolve the issue. We propose a combination of better payment and an opt-in verified participation mode, i.e., video proof, to reduce participants' GenAI use in online studies and increase data quality. Building on this perspective, we provide practical recommendations for researchers and reviewers to improve research quality, maintain fairness, and save resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13579951/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148984400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.","authors":"Anna Butters, Melanie Benson Marshall, Stephen Pinfield, Tom Stafford, Alexander Bondarenko, Barbara Neubauer, Robert Nuske, Pierre Schwidlinski, Hanna Denecke","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00246-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00246-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer review-based funding evaluation systems are under increasing pressure. To help alleviate this, innovative approaches like Distributed Peer Review (DPR) - where applicants review proposals for the same funding call - are being explored. The Volkswagen Foundation trialled DPR alongside a conventional panel review process for an interdisciplinary call. Evaluation of this trial provides insights into the dynamics of (distributed) peer review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All proposals (N = 140) underwent both DPR and the panel review process. In DPR, applicants (N = 323) reviewed four or five proposals, providing an overall score, scores for each funding criteria, and a comment. Proposals were ranked using a trimmed mean score. Expectation and feedback surveys were administered. The panel process involved shortlisting by VWS staff, review by panellists (N = 8), and a final panel discussion. Semi-structured interviews with applicants, panellists, and VWS staff (N = 20) explored perceptions and experiences of DPR, using thematic analysis. Quantitative analysis of review data and surveys utilised bootstrapping to assess decision stability and mixed effects models for consistency between reviewers. Qualitative and quantitative results were integrated in a convergent parallel design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DPR recommended ten proposals for funding, while the panel recommended eleven; three overlapped. Funding criteria strongly predicted overall score; 'Originality' was given most weight by both sets of reviewers. Stability of DPR funding decisions was modest; across 500 bootstrapped samples a mean of 5.49 out of ten previously funded proposals would still be funded. This may be explained by high inter-reviewer variability: more variance was attributable to between-reviewer differences (20.0%) than between-proposal differences (8.9%). Advantages of DPR included increased efficiency, faster decision times, detailed feedback to applicants, and democratisation of funding evaluation. Noted disadvantages were burden on applicants, absence of discussion, and perceived lack of reviewer expertise. Funders implementing DPR must consider the high initial effort, potential for 'gaming', and reduced direct influence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This trial demonstrates the feasibility of DPR for an interdisciplinary funding programme. Implementing DPR requires funders to accept trade-offs and that DPR may not produce the same outcomes as existing systems. Building on established peer review principles, it may offer benefits, including shortening time to funding decision, and has the potential to contribute to the democratisation of funding evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13617845/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149077016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correcting the record on \"Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study\".","authors":"James P Rathmell","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00249-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00249-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2024, Anesthesiology published a systematic review and meta-analysis of liposomal bupivacaine together with four editorials presenting both strong support for its conclusions and critical perspectives, with the editorial authors' industry affiliations and financial interests disclosed. A subsequent case study in Research Integrity and Peer Review characterized this presentation as a \"retraction in situ\" and questioned whether organizational and industry relationships compromised editorial independence. This Correspondence presents additional facts relevant to evaluating those conclusions. The research article remained intact. The coordinated presentation was commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief, while a senior editor serving as acting Editor-in-Chief independently managed peer review and made the publication decisions for all four editorials. Before the case study was published, its authors had submitted to Anesthesiology a manuscript advancing a similar critique. That manuscript underwent multiple rounds of external assessment, senior editorial-board review, and discussion by the full editorial board; its rejection was not unilateral. During my tenure, neither the American Society of Anesthesiologists nor Pacira BioSciences participated in or influenced the 2024 publication decisions for the research article or accompanying editorials, or the disposition of the authors' later submission. Greater procedural clarity could have been achieved through timelier publication, fuller disclosure of organizational relationships, and complete recusal of the Editor-in-Chief from consideration of the later submission. These are legitimate procedural lessons, but they do not establish external influence or editorial misconduct. The publication record instead reflects the transparent presentation of scientific disagreement, not a disguised retraction.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13548466/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148908280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disclosure is not documentation: an open science framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly research and publication workflows.","authors":"Jan Christopher Cwik","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00245-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00245-8","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Generative AI is increasingly used in scholarly research, writing, and publication workflows. Many journal and publisher policies ask authors to disclose relevant AI use, but disclosure alone rarely clarifies how AI-assisted work was performed, what information was entered, how outputs were evaluated, or how human responsibility was maintained. This creates a gap between AI-use disclosure as a publication requirement and AI-use documentation as an open science practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This article develops a conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows. The framework was informed by exploratory, non-systematic source and policy mapping, AI-assisted exploratory evidence mapping, manual review of selected recent literature, and development of accompanying Open Science Framework materials. These steps were used to identify recurring documentation expectations and unresolved policy gaps and to translate them into practical documentation domains, with particular attention to task specificity, proportionality, role-specific documentation, privacy-sensitive transparency, and clinically sensitive contexts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The framework distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use. Minimal documentation is intended for low-risk uses such as limited language polishing, whereas extended documentation is recommended when AI supports literature synthesis, coding, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, peer-review-related work, clinical material, or research procedures. The framework is accompanied by reusable OSF materials, including documentation templates, prompt-log structures, declaration examples, checklists, clinical redaction guidance, and source-tracking materials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AI-use disclosure communicates that AI was used; documentation makes the AI-assisted workflow traceable, inspectable, and accountable. A task-specific, proportionate, role-specific, and privacy-sensitive documentation approach can support responsible AI use while protecting confidential, patient-related, peer-review-related, and methodologically sensitive information. The accompanying bilingual materials are openly available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J .</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13483690/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148802805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Follow-up investigation of ethics approvals and regulatory compliance in publications from the IHU-Mi.","authors":"Fabrice Frank, Elisabeth M Bik, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Jérôme Barriere, Éric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, Lonni Besançon","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00234-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00234-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Following our previous investigation of 456 articles published by the IHU-Méditerranée Infection (IHU-Mi) institute in Marseille, France, subsequent editorial actions, institutional reviews, and reports from French authorities provided additional evidence relevant to our concerns. We therefore extended our investigation to the broader IHU-Mi bibliography to assess potential breaches of the Declaration of Helsinki, French regulations governing research involving human participants, and the consistency between reported studies and the ethics approvals cited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed 2,674 IHU-MI publications identified through PubMed, Google Scholar, PubPeer, and manual searches. We excluded articles not reporting research involving human participants, articles clearly reporting retrospective studies without ethics flaw, and articles for which editorial investigations had clarified our concerns. We compared the remaining articles with the relevant French legal framework and, where available, with ethics approvals obtained through public transparency procedures or other sources.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified ethical or legal concerns in 853 articles from this institute. These included at least 75 articles with retrospective approvals, 194 describing research conducted abroad without mention of local approvals, 343 not mentioning ethics approval, and 426 describing sample collection from healthy volunteers with concerns. Among 374 articles for which we obtained the cited ethics approval documents, at least 304, or 81.3%, described sample collections that were not covered by the corresponding approval. Since our previous investigation, editorial and institutional responses have led to 64 retractions and 270 expressions of concern, and have clarified or substantiated many of the concerns raised. We also found that the local ethics committee issuing most of the approvals may not have been sufficiently independent from the authors.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Institutional reports and editorial decisions have substantiated many of the concerns identified in our analysis, although a small subset of cases was attributable to unintentional errors. Our findings indicate widespread and longstanding problems in research ethics compliance within the IHU-Mi bibliography and support the need for continued editorial and institutional review.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13465284/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148723995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction: Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam.","authors":"Tamarinde Haven, Joeri Tijdink, Brian Martinson, Lex Bouter, Frans Oort","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00244-9","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00244-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13459400/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148714835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.","authors":"Sean Grant, Katherine S Corker, David Mellor, Suzanne L K Stewart, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Aidan G Cashin, Malgorzata Lagisz, David Moher, Daniel Umpierre, Virginia Barbour, Stuart Buck, Gary S Collins, Haley F Hazlett, Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Carole J Lee, Timothy H Parker, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Elaine Toomey, Brian A Nosek","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00223-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00223-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transparency and openness are core scientific values that enable independent verification of reported research results. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, first published in 2015 (TOP 2015), provided a flexible framework for journals to design and implement publication standards promoting these values. Over the past decade, widespread use of TOP 2015 contributed to valuable evidence and feedback for refinement.</p><p><strong>Main text: </strong>The TOP Advisory Board undertook a comprehensive update of TOP 2015 that went into effect in 2025 (TOP 2025). The update introduces an explicit conceptual framework clarifying its primary objective: improving the verifiability of empirical research claims. Standards are reorganized into three categories (Research Practices, Verification Practices, and Verification Studies) that resolve conceptual and structural limitations of TOP 2015. Research Practices include seven discrete practices implemented in three ways: Disclosed, Shared and Cited, and Certified. Verification Practices introduce standards for computational reproducibility and results transparency, while Verification Studies enumerate empirical research designs and publication formats that support verification of results. Language now centers on researchers and studies (rather than journals) to facilitate adoption by funders, research organizations, preprint servers, evidence curators, and other interest-holders. These changes promote flexible implementation and contextual tailoring.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TOP 2025 retains the core strengths of TOP 2015 while addressing feedback from a decade of implementation and advances in open science. Rather than a universal mandate, it provides a shared, adaptable framework to coordinate the design, implementation, and communication of open policies across interest-holders.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13439764/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148681254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}