Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance最新文献

The perennial problem of author name ambiguity has attracted increasing attention in the academic community. Drawing on the literature, this article first highlights the pervasiveness of the problem and discusses its adverse consequences. It then analyzes the behavioral causes of the problem in the Chinese context and attributes them to personal, cultural, and institutional factors. Informed by this analysis and recognizing ORCID as a promising solution, we propose an ORCID-based "Prevention plus Cure" campaign against author name ambiguity. The prevention objective relies on researchers' consistent use of ORCID, while the cure objective involves retrospectively integrating ORCIDs into backfile publications. We also outline the responsibilities of various stakeholders to ensure the success of the campaign. Furthermore, we argue that universal adoption of ORCID can help curb authorship-related misconduct, discern predatory journals and publishers, and track researchers' undesirable records of academic publishing. We then analyze the current status of ORCID adoption in China, identify potential challenges, propose tentative solutions to address them, and highlight ORCID as a tool that can be utilized to empower China's combat against research misconduct. In conclusion, we emphasize the importance of conducting empirical research to inform more effective promotion of ORCID adoption in China.

Although reproducibility is central to the scientific method, its understanding within the research community remains insufficient. We aimed to explore the perceptions of research reproducibility among stakeholders within academia, learn about possible barriers and facilitators to reproducibility-related practices, and gather their suggestions for the Croatian Reproducibility Network website. We conducted four focus groups with researchers, teachers, editors, research managers, and policymakers from Croatia (n = 23). The participants observed a lack of consensus on the core definitions of reproducibility, both generally and between disciplines. They noted that incentivization and recognition of reproducibility-related practices from publishers and institutions, alongside comprehensive education adapted to the researchers' career stage, could help with implementing reproducibility. Education was considered essential to these efforts, as it could help create a research culture based on good reproducibility-related practices and behavior rather than one driven by mandates or career advancement. This was particularly found to be relevant for growing reproducibility efforts globally. Regarding the Croatian Reproducibility Network website, the participants suggested we adapt the content to users from different disciplines or career stages and offer guidance and tools for reproducibility through which we should present core reproducibility concepts. Our findings could inform other initiatives focused on improving research reproducibility.

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

'Write your paper on the motherland' is an influential Chinese slogan encouraging researchers to focus on domestic issues and prioritize local applications of their work, though interpretations differ. The 2024 'International Journal Early Warning List' update sparked renewed debate over the slogan's meaning. This letter argues that misinterpreting this slogan as merely promoting domestic journal submissions could lead to a more conservative submission behavior and a more closed academic system. This reflects a common challenge among non-English-speaking countries to balance international reach with local contributions in publications.

To rapidly respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis, researchers have been called upon to prioritize pandemic research, while simultaneously modifying their existing research to maintain the safety of all stakeholders. This study aims to explore the experiences of health science researchers in their scientific practices, research priorities, and professional relational dynamics due to COVID-19. Specifically, we interviewed 31 researchers from diverse fields at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Participants worked on COVID-19, non-COVID-19 related research, or both. We integrated inductive and deductive coding using a thematic coding method. The following four themes were explored: 1) impact of research, 2) research priorities, 3) professional relationships and 4) contextual influences on science. Participants were drawn to COVID-19 work for a diversity of reasons including social need, scientific interest, professional duty, and increased access to funding opportunities. While collaborations have increased for COVID-19 researchers, interpersonal relationships have been challenging for participants. Additionally, political, familial, and personal stresses due to the pandemic have taken a toll on researchers in very different and often inequitable ways. To ensure team cohesion, there is a need to develop research practices, policies and systems that value empathy, flexibility, and interdependence.

Background: Following the 2023 surge in popularity of large language models like ChatGPT, significant ethical discussions emerged regarding their role in academic authorship. Notable ethics organizations, including the ICMJE and COPE, alongside leading publishers, have instituted ethics clauses explicitly stating that such models do not meet the criteria for authorship due to accountability issues.Objective: This study aims to assess the prevalence and ethical implications of listing ChatGPT as an author on academic papers, in violation of existing ethical guidelines set by the ICMJE and COPE.Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review using databases such as Web of Science and Scopus to identify instances where ChatGPT was credited as an author, co-author, or group author.Results: Our search identified 14 papers featuring ChatGPT in such roles. In four of those papers, ChatGPT was listed as an "author" alongside the journal's editor or editor-in-chief. Several of the ChatGPT-authored papers have accrued dozens, even hundreds of citations according to Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.Discussion: The inclusion of ChatGPT as an author on these papers raises critical questions about the definition of authorship and the accountability mechanisms in place for content produced by artificial intelligence. Despite the ethical guidelines, the widespread citation of these papers suggests a disconnect between ethical policy and academic practice.Conclusion: The findings suggest a need for corrective measures to address these discrepancies. Immediate review and amendment of the listed papers is advised, highlighting a significant oversight in the enforcement of ethical standards in academic publishing.

This paper investigates the differences and similarities between European regulatory research integrity systems. The data collection process involved gathering information from public sources. A total of 27 European countries were included in the comprehensive dataset. Three determinants were examined: the legal structure of national research integrity regulation, the presence of national research integrity guidelines, and the provision of research integrity training by national research integrity offices. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify relevant differences in national research integrity systems and the work of national research integrity offices. The findings suggest that the functions and powers of research integrity offices in Europe vary significantly, and there is extensive variation in the legal status and functions of national research integrity systems. We identify the major implications arising from these differences and explore what the challenges for harmonization of the European research integrity systems are. Our findings highlight the need for promoting dialogue between actors on an international level.