Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance

Papers
(The TQCC of Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance is 7. 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 2022-08-01 to 2026-08-01.)
ArticleCitations
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study220
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials108
The case for affiliation contribution statements82
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship67
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards52
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality43
Mitigating global climate change and its environmental impact is a key social responsibility of scientists and should be part of research ethics policies and guidelines39
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation34
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers29
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews27
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students27
Correction25
Accountability in evidence syntheses: On the need for rigorous peer review and reporting guidelines25
Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? – A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies25
How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics23
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals22
Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions19
Statement of Retraction: Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science19
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity19
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute18
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion17
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands16
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management15
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine15
New evidence of weakness and inconsistency in the regulation of research misconduct in Australia14
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences13
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods13
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong13
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments12
Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles12
Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants11
Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts11
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe11
How to embed ethics into laboratory research10
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer10
AI-based research mentors: Plausible scenarios and ethical issues10
Possible misplaced perception of moral shame in AI-use disclosure10
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
Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors: A content analysis of journal policies10
Development, validity, and reliability of the pre-attendance conference evaluator (PACE) tool for identifying predatory conferences10
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research10
How to write a good embedded ethics letter10
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan10
GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing9
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go9
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
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context9
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed9
Clarifying polarization in research9
On polarization, incommensurability, and value-laden research. A response to Bjørn Hofmann, 20248
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)8
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review8
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research8
Are the lists of questionable journals reasonable: A case study of early warning journal lists8
A Delphi survey on attitudes to serious research misconduct: Exploring convergence vs. polarization of views of research “sleuths” and research integrity experts8
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science8
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis8
Reflections on the 2024 Final Rule on Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct8
Toward an “ecosystems” approach to responsible conduct of research (RCR): A multi-stakeholder framework for collaborative accountability and policy recommendations on research integrity8
Scientific priorities and relational dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study8
‘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?8
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures7
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 7
Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting7
Using AI to write scholarly publications7
The research literature is an unsafe workplace7
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond7
It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research7
Timing and monitoring of financial disclosures in publications: A cross-institutional assessment of financial conflict of interest reports7
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review7
“Dear Editor, may I speak with you?“7
0.25915098190308