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 2021-04-01 to 2025-04-01.)
ArticleCitations
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed117
Statement from the outgoing Editor in-Chief to our authors and readers76
Correction40
An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences36
Is academic research and publishing still leaving developing countries behind?26
OHSU Employees’ Opinions of Receipt of Clinical Care and Participation in Clinical Research at Place of Employment26
Recalibrated responses needed to a global research landscape in flux25
Evidence-based literature review, not the meta-analysis: A rejoinder24
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go22
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study22
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics21
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students21
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers20
Perceptions on the role of research integrity officers in French medical schools19
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case17
Bad apples or systematic problem? Is Italy struggling with maintaining high level of research integrity?16
Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers’ ethics16
Responding to research misconduct allegations brought against top university officials15
Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices15
What is the sensitivity and specificity of the peer review process?14
Transform DOI system into a science hub12
The case for affiliation contribution statements12
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation12
Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing11
Training undergraduate students in HIPAA compliance10
The PubPeer conundrum: Administrative challenges in research misconduct proceedings10
Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 20239
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality9
Research anomalies in criminology: How serious? How extensive over time? And who was responsible?9
Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values9
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers9
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards8
Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines8
Replication and trustworthiness8
Knowledge, attitude, opinion, perspective, and agreement of Palestinian medical students on strategies/recommendations to curb plagiarism: A multicenter cross-sectional study8
Research integrity guidelines and safeguards in Brazil8
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship8
Harness editors’ networks of communication to fight publication fraud8
Scholarship, not politics8
Not so fast with fast funding7
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates7
How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership?7
In Defense of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Response to Radder7
Development and implementation of research integrity guidance documents: Explorative interviews with research integrity experts7
Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science7
How often are replication attempts questioned?7
Defining “recklessness” in research misconduct proceedings6
Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study6
Do authors need an Ombudsperson to resolve peer-review issues?6
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials6
Using ChatGPT to conduct a literature review6
Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study6
Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States6
The present situation of and challenges in research ethics and integrity promotion: Experiences in East Asia6
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis6
Correction6
Perceptions of publication pressure among Hungarian researchers: Differences across career stage, gender, and scientific field5
Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers5
Transparency in research: An analysis of ChatGPT usage acknowledgment by authors across disciplines and geographies5
Deploying an ethics needs assessment to inform a navigational tool for research compliance pathways at a provincial Canadian health authority5
Jumping with a parachute – is promoting research integrity meaningful?5
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study5
ChatGPT as an “author”: Bibliometric analysis to assess the validity of authorship5
Chore or desire? Students’ response to online lessons in scientific integrity5
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)5
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review5
Research funders play an important role in fostering research integrity and responsible internationalization in a multipolar world5
Cancer researchers’ experiences with and perceptions of research data sharing: Results of a cross-sectional survey5
0.040058135986328