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 2021-05-01 to 2025-05-01.)
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 guidelines121
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials79
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship41
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards36
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study29
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation27
OHSU Employees’ Opinions of Receipt of Clinical Care and Participation in Clinical Research at Place of Employment27
Replication and trustworthiness24
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers23
The case for affiliation contribution statements21
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality21
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews18
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students18
Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study17
Correction17
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study17
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion15
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands14
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity13
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 medicine12
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals12
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute12
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong11
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods11
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments10
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research10
Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants10
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe10
For the “good of the lab”: Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group10
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences10
How to write a good embedded ethics letter9
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction9
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 respected9
How to embed ethics into laboratory research9
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer9
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case8
Transform DOI system into a science hub8
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context8
Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures8
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan8
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers8
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates7
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go7
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)7
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics7
Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?7
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed7
Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists6
Editorial6
Reviewer acknowledgment lists as data: Low-hanging fruit for analysis6
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis6
‘Special issue-ization’ as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the “big five” and the risks for research integrity6
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures6
Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study6
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science6
Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct6
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?6
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review6
Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal5
Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion5
The research literature is an unsafe workplace5
Using AI to write scholarly publications5
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research5
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond5
Timing and monitoring of financial disclosures in publications: A cross-institutional assessment of financial conflict of interest reports5
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 5
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review5
The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores5
0.038711071014404