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 2021-08-01 to 2025-08-01.)
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 guidelines138
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship90
OHSU Employees’ Opinions of Receipt of Clinical Care and Participation in Clinical Research at Place of Employment41
The case for affiliation contribution statements40
Replication and trustworthiness35
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers27
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 consultation23
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study22
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students21
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials20
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality19
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews19
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study18
Correction15
Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study15
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands14
How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics13
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine13
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute13
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management13
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion13
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences12
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
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals12
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments11
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong11
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research11
For the “good of the lab”: Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group11
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods11
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe10
How to write a good embedded ethics letter10
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan10
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
How to embed ethics into laboratory research10
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer10
Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures9
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case9
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates9
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context9
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers9
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed9
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics9
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go9
Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?8
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review8
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science8
Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study8
Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists8
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis8
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?7
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research7
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures7
‘Special issue-ization’ as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the “big five” and the risks for research integrity7
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)7
Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct7
Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal6
The research literature is an unsafe workplace6
Timing and monitoring of financial disclosures in publications: A cross-institutional assessment of financial conflict of interest reports6
The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores6
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 6
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review6
Using AI to write scholarly publications6
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond6
Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion6
Self-plagiarism: A retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines6
0.047355175018311