scholarly journals A decade of empirical research on research integrity: what have we (not) looked at?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Engineering Ethics ◽  
The Body ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research System ◽  
Science And Engineering ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Research On Research

AbstractIn the past decades, increasing visibility of research misconduct scandals created momentum for discourses on research integrity to such an extent that the topic became a field of research itself. Yet, a comprehensive overview of research in the field is still missing. Here we describe methods, trends, publishing patterns, and impact of a decade of research on research integrity.To give a comprehensive overview of research on research integrity, we first systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published in English between 2005 and 2015. We then classified each relevant article according to its topic, several methodological characteristics, its general focus and findings, and its citation impact.We included 986 articles in our analysis. We found that the body of literature on research integrity is growing in importance, and that the field is still largely dominated by non-empirical publications. Within the bulk of empirical records (N=342), researchers and students are most often studied, but other actors and the social context in which they interact, seem to be overlooked. The few empirical articles that examined determinants of misconduct found that problems from the research system (e.g., pressure, competition) were most likely to cause inadequate research practices. Paradoxically, the majority of empirical articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on techniques to build researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than techniques to change the research system.Our review highlights the areas, methods, and actors favoured in research on research integrity, and reveals a few blindspots. Involving non-researchers and reconnecting what is known to the approaches investigated may be the first step to generate executable knowledge that will allow us to increase the success of future approaches.A word from the authorsWe find important to mention that this manuscript underwent peer review and was rejected from the following journals:PLOS ONESubmitted 19th December 2017Peer-review and rejection received 26th June 2018.Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics (JSEE)Submitted 18th August 2018Peer-review response with major revision request received 9th September 2019Revision submitted 24th October 218Rejection received 27th December 2018We regret not having submitted this preprint before our first submission. Nonetheless, now after over one year in submission processes, we thought that we should make this manuscript and its data available as a pre-print before undergoing further submissions.In order to promote transparency however, we asked both journal whether anonymous reviews could be added alongside this pre-print to ensure that readers are informed of the issues that disqualified our manuscript.PLOS ONE agreed for us to share the anonymous reviews which are now available — together with our itemized changes and responses — in the ‘Online Resource 5 – Peer Review Report’. We thank the editors of the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics and the integrity team of Springer Nature for thoroughly discussing our request, but unfortunately, given the closed peer review policy at Springer Nature, we were unable to provide information about the peer review from the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics.We advise our readers to look at the peer-review and be aware of the challenges and limitations attached with our work. Of course, we welcome comments and contributions to make our work better.Sincerely,Noémie Aubert Bonn and Wim Pinxten

scholarly journals Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Wager ◽  
◽  
Sabine Kleinert
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
List Type ◽  
Research Institutions ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

scholarly journals A Decade of Empirical Research on Research Integrity: What Have We (Not) Looked At?

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 338-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noémie Aubert Bonn ◽  
Wim Pinxten
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Research On Research ◽  
Research Systems ◽  
System Changes

Research on research integrity has become a field of its own; yet, a comprehensive overview the field is still missing. We systematically searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant articles published between 2005 and 2015. We extracted the topic, methodology, focus, and citations from each articles. From the 986 articles included, only 342 report empirical data. Empirical papers predominantly targeted researchers and students. Although empirical articles questioning causes for misconduct mostly blamed research systems (e.g., pressure, competition) for detrimental research practices, articles proposing approaches to foster integrity focused on researchers’ awareness and compliance rather than on system changes. Involving nonresearchers and reconnecting what is known to what is proposed may help research on research integrity move forward.

scholarly journals A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie L. Harriman ◽  
Maria K. Kowalczuk ◽  
Iveta Simera ◽  
Elizabeth Wager
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research On Research

The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Race Theory ◽  
Queer Theory ◽  
Postcolonial Theory ◽  
The Body ◽  
Feminist Philosophy ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Rich Diversity ◽  
Trans Studies ◽  
Feminist Perspectives ◽  
The Rich

This exciting new Handbook offers a comprehensive overview of the contemporary state of the field. The editors’ introduction and forty-five essays cover feminist critical engagements with philosophy and adjacent scholarly fields, as well as feminist approaches to current debates and crises across the world. Authors cover topics ranging from the ways in which feminist philosophy attends to other systems of oppression, and the gendered, racialized, and classed assumptions embedded in philosophical concepts, to feminist perspectives on prominent subfields of philosophy. The first section contains chapters that explore feminist philosophical engagement with mainstream and marginalized histories and traditions, while the second section parses feminist philosophy’s contributions to with numerous philosophical subfields, for example metaphysics and bioethics. A third section explores what feminist philosophy can illuminate about crucial moral and political issues of identity, gender, the body, autonomy, prisons, among numerous others. The Handbook concludes with the field’s engagement with other theories and movements, including trans studies, queer theory, critical race, theory, postcolonial theory, and decolonial theory. The volume provides a rigorous but accessible resource for students and scholars who are interested in feminist philosophy, and how feminist philosophers situate their work in relation to the philosophical mainstream and other disciplines. Above all it aims to showcase the rich diversity of subject matter, approach, and method among feminist philosophers.

BIOCHEMICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HYDROETHANOLIC EXTRACT OF IRVINGIA WOMBOLU KERNELS ON RAT LIVER AND KIDNEY

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oyetunji Timothy Kolawole ◽  
Akeem Ademola Ayankunle ◽  
Olayemi Kamoru Wakeel ◽  
Anthony Tope Olofinnade ◽  
Olatunde Samson Olaniyi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Total Protein ◽  
Wistar Rats ◽  
Myocardial Damage ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
Stem Bark ◽  
The Body ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Medicinal And Aromatic Plants ◽  
North East

Objective: Many plants are consumed as food by humans for growth and survival, but a large number of these plants have not been tested for toxicity potential. Repeated consumption of such plants could lead to accumulation of toxic chemicals in the body and cause health-related problems. Irvingia wombolu kernel is widely consumed by many ethnic groups in Nigeria and some other African countries. The toxicity potentials of Irvingia wombolu kernel extract (IWKE) on the kidney and liver of rats was evaluated in this study. Methods: Three groups of Wistar rats were fed orally with IWKE (50, 100, and 200 mg/kg b.w) daily for 28 days. The fourth group which is the control was treated with distilled water (10 ml/kg b.w) for the same period.  The rats were sacrificed on the 29th day, and blood samples, kidney and liver were harvested for analyses. Serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total protein, albumin, bilirubin, creatinine, and urea were determined. Kidney and liver sections were examined for histopathological changes. Data were subjected to Student’s t-test for statistical analysis. Results: Serum levels of creatinine and urea were not significantly altered in the IWKE-treated rats compared with the control. At 200 mg/kg b.w, the extract significantly increased (p<0.05) serum levels of ALT, AST, total bilirubin, total protein, and albumin compared with the control. Significant distortions were observed in the liver sections of rats treated with 200 mg/kg b.w IWKE compared with control, but the structure of the kidney section of IWKE-treated rats was not significantly different from the control. Conclusion: The results showed that repeated ingestion of Irvingia wombolu kernel at a dose of 200 mg/kg b.w for 28 days induced liver damage, but does not significantly affect renal function.                       Peer Review History: Received: 9 September 2021; Revised: 12 October; Accepted: 27 October, Available online: 15 November 2021 Academic Editor:  Dr. Ali Abdullah Al-yahawi, Al-Razi university, Department of Pharmacy, Yemen, [email protected] UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.  Received file:                Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.0/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10 Reviewers: Dr. Sangeetha Arullappan, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia, [email protected] Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, [email protected] Taha A.I. El Bassossy, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Department, Desert Research Center, Cairo, Egypt, [email protected] Dr. Nazim Hussain, North East Frontier Technical University, Arunachal pradesh, India, [email protected] Similar Articles: MYOCARDIAL POTENCY OF AQUEOUS EXTRACT OF HARUNGANA MADAGASCARIENSIS STEM BARK AGAINST ISOPROTERENOL-INDUCED MYOCARDIAL DAMAGE IN RATS PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF METHANOL EXTRACT OF RUSSELIA EQUISETIFORMIS AGAINST PARACETAMOL-INDUCED HEPATOTOXICITY IN WISTAR RATS

scholarly journals There are Discipline-Based Differences in Authors’ Perceptions Towards Open Access Publishing

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Shen
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Citation Impact ◽  
The United States ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Tenured Faculty ◽  
Tenure Track ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Tenure Track Faculty

Objective – To determine reasons authors choose to publish in open access (OA) education journals, which provides readers with unrestricted free online access to published articles, and investigate ways in which publishing practices in the discipline of education affects authors’ willingness to publish in these journals. Design – Web-based survey questionnaire. Setting – The survey was conducted over the Internet through email invitations. Subjects – A total of 309 authors who published in OA journals in education participated in this survey for a response rate of 27.9%. Methods – Researchers surveyed authors who published in selected education journals from 2007 to 2008. The journal titles where generated from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). All chosen journals were peer-reviewed and published either original research or overviews of research results. In addition, all were in English and published in the United States. A total of 1,107 authors were invited to participate via email. The survey was delivered through commercial online survey tool SurveyMonkey and consisted of multiple choice and open-ended questions. It was open from early March to April 16, 2009. Main Results – The survey had a response rate of 27.9%. The majority of participants were tenured faculty (42.0%), tenure-track faculty (25.9%), and non-tenure track faculty (12.1%). The rest of participants (20%) consisted of adjunct instructors, graduate students, administrators, and individuals working in non-academic institutions such as government agencies. Most authors surveyed have published between 10 and 20 articles (20.6%), or over 20 articles (30.4%) in print and electronic journals (e-journals). The majority of authors also reported that one (23.3%) or between 2 to 5 (54%) of their articles was published in OA format. When choosing a journal for publications, authors surveyed ranked peer-review to be the most important determinant. Other important determinants included “good match” (ranked second most important) for authors’ manuscripts and reputation of the journal (third) and editorial board (fourth). Citation impact, such as the ISI impact factor (eighth), and copyright retention (tenth) were ranked as some of the least important factors. Researcher also noted a “surprisingly low” (p. 124) correlation between authors’ interest in copyright retention and practices of self-archiving. Thirty-seven percent of authors surveyed reported self-archiving at least one of their publications, but just over 35% of the same group considered copyright retention a determinant when choosing journals for publication. Overall, only 22% of the authors surveyed deemed e-journals to be “less desirable” than print journals. The majority of both tenured faculty (77.4%) and tenure-track faculty (72%) surveyed found e-journals “acceptable” or difference between print and electronic journal format “not an issue.” Only 16.8% of authors surveyed had published in journals that required author fees. Moreover, over 56% of authors indicated they would not publish in journals requiring such fees. Most authors reported they were either very aware (45.1%) or somewhat aware (38.9%) of the concept of OA publishing. However, their perceptions of OA publishing varied: • 47.7% believed OA journals have faster publication times, while 33.6% disagreed and 18.5% offered no opinion. • 57.3% of authors believed OA journals have larger readerships. However, when asked whether OA articles would be cited more frequently than others, only one third of authors agreed, while one third disagreed and one third offered no opinion. • Just under half of the authors (49.4%) thought OA journals are not less prestigious than subscription based journals, while 18.8% had no opinion. Lastly, it should be noted that only 7.1% of authors credited their institution’s library for making them aware of the OA publishing concept. Most credited their colleagues (42.1%), Google searches for publishing opportunities (40.4%), and professional societies (29.3%) for raising their awareness of OA. Moreover, based on voluntary general comments left at end of the survey, researchers observed that some authors viewed the terms open access and electronic “synonymously” and thought of OA publishing only as a “format change” (p.125). Conclusion – The study revealed some discipline-based differences in authors’ attitudes toward scholarly publishing and the concept of OA. The majority of authors publishing in education viewed author fees, a common OA publishing practice in life and medical sciences, as undesirable. On the other hand, citation impact, a major determinant for life and medical sciences publishing, was only a minor factor for authors in education. These findings provide useful insights for future research on discipline-based publication differences. The findings also indicated peer review is the primary determinant for authors publishing in education. Moreover, while the majority of authors surveyed considered both print and e-journal format to be equally acceptable, almost one third viewed OA journals as less prestigious than subscription-based publications. Some authors also seemed to confuse the concept between OA and electronic publishing. These findings could generate fresh discussion points between academic librarians and faculty members regarding OA publishing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document