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 2021-12-01 to 2025-12-01.)
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 guidelines168
Misinterpretation of statistical nonsignificance as a sign of potential bias: Hydroxychloroquine as a case study94
Exploring scientific misconduct in Morocco based on an analysis of plagiarism perception in a cohort of 1,220 researchers and students42
Taking it back: A pilot study of a rubric measuring retraction notice quality41
Addressing serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations through action plans: Interviews with institutional officials38
Ethical committee frameworks and processes used to evaluate humanities research require reform: Findings from a UK-wide network consultation30
Inclusive, engaged, and accountable institutional review boards29
The case for affiliation contribution statements28
Challenges for enforcing editorial policies on AI-generated papers26
On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship23
Correction23
Fake no more: The redemption of ChatGPT in literature reviews21
Analysis of scientific paper retractions due to data problems: Revealing challenges and countermeasures in data management19
How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics19
Inverted U-Shaped relationship between team size and citation impact: Mediating role of responsibility diffusion17
Characteristics of blacklisted journals: Evidence from Chinese-language academic journals17
Procrastination and inconsistency: Expressions of concern for publications with compromised integrity16
Comparing the performance of Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science in identifying retracted publications in medicine15
A comprehensive ethics and data governance framework for data-intensive health research: Lessons from an Italian cancer research institute15
A comprehensive overview of studies that assessed article retractions within the biomedical sciences14
Manifestations of research ethics and integrity leadership in national surveys – cases of Estonia, Finland, Norway, France and the Netherlands14
Perceptions of network-level ethics in an engineering research center: Analysis of ethical issues & practices reported by scientific & engineering participants13
Status bias in Chinese scholarly publishing: an exploratory study based on mixed methods13
Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts13
Institutional policies on plagiarism management:A comparison of universities in mainland China and Hong Kong12
In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer12
Typology of conflict of commitment (COC) in the era of inappropriate foreign influence in research12
Does YouTube promote research ethics and conduct? A content analysis of Youtube Videos and analysis of sentiments through viewers comments12
Creating research ethics and integrity country report cards: Case study from Europe12
How to write a good embedded ethics letter11
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 respected11
How to embed ethics into laboratory research11
AI-based research mentors: Plausible scenarios and ethical issues10
Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures10
A structural equation model for cyber academic dishonesty in higher education: Evidence from Taiwan10
Clarifying polarization in research10
Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context10
Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics9
On polarization, incommensurability, and value-laden research. A response to Bjørn Hofmann, 20249
GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing9
Retraction (mal)practices of elite marketing and social psychology journals in the Dirk Smeesters’ research misconduct case9
Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed8
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
Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review8
COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go8
The consistency of peer-reviewers and the process of commensuration: a comment on Bolek et al. (2022)8
‘I don’t believe in the neutrality of research. OK?’ Mapping researchers’ attitudes toward values in science8
Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates8
How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers8
Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis8
‘Special issue-ization’ as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the “big five” and the risks for research integrity7
Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?7
Keeping the health of our home planet in mind as we do research7
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 Portugal7
Publishing in potentially predatory journals: Do universities adopt university leaders’ dishonest behavior?6
Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review6
The case for compensating peer reviewers: A response to Moher and Vieira Armond6
AI, reviewer incentives, and questions raised by García et al. 6
Incorporating replication in higher education: Supervisors’ perspectives and institutional pressures6
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
“Dear Editor, may I speak with you?“5
Limits of ethical non-human subjects research in an applied setting5
Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges5
More ethics in the laboratory, please! Scientists’ perspectives on ethics in the preclinical phase5
Using AI to write scholarly publications5
It takes two flints to start a fire: A focus group study into PhD supervision for responsible research5
Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study5
The punishment intensity for research misconduct and its related factors: An exploratory study on hospitals in Mainland China5
Self-plagiarism: A retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines5
Evaluating the effectiveness of a Delphi-validated educational video in enhancing awareness and understanding of predatory journals among residents and medical students5
Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia5
Can ChatGPT be trusted to provide reliable estimates?5
0.050878047943115