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 2020-11-01 to 2024-11-01.)
ArticleCitations
Using AI to write scholarly publications91
Using ChatGPT to conduct a literature review60
Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem38
Unethical medical treatment and research in US territories37
Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria31
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers22
Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-1919
Is academic research and publishing still leaving developing countries behind?19
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction18
What difference might retractions make? An estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses18
Open science, the replication crisis, and environmental public health17
Requiem for impact factors and high publication charges17
Citation bias, diversity, and ethics17
Timeliness and content of retraction notices for publications by a single research group16
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates15
Letter to editor: Academic journals should clarify the proportion of NLP-generated content in papers15
Factors influencing the promotion and implementation of research integrity in research performing and research funding organizations: A scoping review15
Can ChatGPT be trusted to provide reliable estimates?14
Why research integrity matters and how it can be improved12
Improving evidence-based practice through preregistration of applied research: Barriers and recommendations12
Text recycling in STEM: A text-analytic study of recently published research articles12
Correcting the scientific record – A broken system?10
Development and implementation of research integrity guidance documents: Explorative interviews with research integrity experts10
Transparency in research: An analysis of ChatGPT usage acknowledgment by authors across disciplines and geographies10
Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making9
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students9
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong8
Retraction according to gender: A descriptive study8
Perspectives of key stakeholders on essential virtues for good scientific practice in research areas8
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?8
Views on ethical issues in research labs: A university-wide survey8
The effect of peer review on the improvement of rejected manuscripts8
Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center8
Replication and trustworthiness8
A research misconduct severity matrix that could serve to harmonize adjudication of findings7
Nonfinancial conflict of interest in peer-review: Some notes for discussion7
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals7
What criteria are used in the investigation of alleged cases of research misconduct?7
A measure to quantify predatory publishing is urgently needed7
For the “good of the lab”: Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group7
A critical analysis of respondent quotes used as titles of qualitative research papers that are published in peer-reviewed journals7
How to embed ethics into laboratory research7
The use of text-matching software’s similarity scores7
Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure6
The letter as a forum to embed ethics into the scientific literature6
How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership?6
A randomized trial alerting authors, with or without coauthors or editors, that research they cited in systematic reviews and guidelines has been retracted6
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences6
Evolution of retracted publications in the medical sciences: Citations analysis, bibliometrics, and altmetrics trends6
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding plagiarism of postgraduate students in Myanmar6
Identifying the factors influencing plagiarism in higher education: An evidence-based review of the literature6
Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index6
Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values5
A bibliometric investigation of the journals that were repeatedly suppressed from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports5
Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study5
“Add-my-name” as a parody of research collaboration among Nigerian researchers5
Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship5
Scholarly publishing experience of postgraduate students in Nigerian Universities5
Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals5
Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States5
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity5
Research misconduct and questionable research practices form a continuum5
Research integrity awareness among biology students – Experience from the University of Belgrade5
Perception of organizational climate by university staff and students in medicine and humanities: A qualitative study5
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe5
The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations5
Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal5
0.061713933944702