Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance

Papers
(The TQCC of Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance is 6. 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 2022-05-01 to 2026-05-01.)
ArticleCitations
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study199
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials104
The case for affiliation contribution statements56
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation48
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students41
Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines34
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards33
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship32
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality29
Correction26
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers26
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews25
How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics24
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals23
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management22
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine21
Statement of Retraction: Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science21
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands20
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion19
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity18
Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions18
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute17
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods16
Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles16
Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts15
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong15
Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants14
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe14
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments14
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer14
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences14
How to embed ethics into laboratory research13
Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors: A content analysis of journal policies13
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research13
How to write a good embedded ethics letter12
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 respected12
Clarifying polarization in research11
AI-based research mentors: Plausible scenarios and ethical issues10
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan10
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context10
Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures10
GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing10
A Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research “sleuths” and research integrity experts9
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go9
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics9
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates9
Toward an “ecosystems” approach to responsible conduct of research (RCR): A multi-stakeholder framework for collaborative accountability and policy recommendations on research integrity9
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed9
On polarization, incommensurability, and value-laden research. A response to Bjørn Hofmann, 20249
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers9
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case9
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review8
Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists8
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)8
Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study8
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis8
‘Special issue-ization’ as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the “big five” and the risks for research integrity8
Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?7
Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct7
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science7
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review7
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research7
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?7
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 7
The research literature is an unsafe workplace7
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures7
Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal7
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond7
Timing and monitoring of financial disclosures in publications: A cross-institutional assessment of financial conflict of interest reports7
“Dear Editor, may I speak with you?“6
Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study6
Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia6
Self-plagiarism: A retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines6
Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting6
More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase6
Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges6
From disclosure to evidence: Toward auditable AI use and contribution provenance6
It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research6
Using AI to write scholarly publications6
Evaluating the effectiveness of a Delphi-validated educational video in enhancing awareness and understanding of predatory journals among residents and medical students6
Ethics tools for strengthening ethics review: A scoping Review6
0.092805862426758