Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance

Papers
(The TQCC of Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance is 5. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2021-06-01 to 2025-06-01.)
ArticleCitations
Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines131
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials84
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship41
OHSU Employees’ Opinions of Receipt of Clinical Care and Participation in Clinical Research at Place of Employment38
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality32
The case for affiliation contribution statements27
Replication and trustworthiness27
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards25
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation24
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study21
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students21
Correction19
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers19
Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study18
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews17
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study17
How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics13
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands13
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals13
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion13
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine12
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute12
For the “good of the lab”: Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group12
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity12
Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants12
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences11
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods10
The author expression ​of concern (AEOC): A proposed formal mechanism to allow authors’ legitimate concerns to be heard, and their rights and voices to be respected10
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer10
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong10
How to embed ethics into laboratory research10
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe10
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments10
How to write a good embedded ethics letter10
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research10
Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures9
Transform DOI system into a science hub9
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context9
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan9
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction9
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case8
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates8
Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study8
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers8
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go8
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review8
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics8
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed8
‘Special issue-ization’ as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the “big five” and the risks for research integrity7
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis7
Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?7
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)7
Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists7
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science7
Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal6
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?6
Reviewer acknowledgment lists as data: Low-hanging fruit for analysis6
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures6
Editorial6
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research6
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 6
Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct6
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond6
The research literature is an unsafe workplace6
The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores5
Using AI to write scholarly publications5
Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting5
Timing and monitoring of financial disclosures in publications: A cross-institutional assessment of financial conflict of interest reports5
Self-plagiarism: A retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines5
Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study5
Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion5
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review5
“Dear Editor, may I speak with you?“5
It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research5
0.049468994140625