Accountability in Research

Scientific publications with compromised integrity should be retracted. Papers citing retracted publications might need correction if findings depend on the retracted publication. While many studies have reported on post-retraction citations, few have focused on citations made before the retraction. We investigated the citation profile for a research group with 113 published concerns regarding publication integrity (CRPI). We identified 376 of their source publications that were cited by 5577 articles, and whether the source publication had a published CRPI. Of 6926 references to a source publication in these citing articles, for 3925 (57%) the source article had a published CRPI, while for 3001 (43%) it did not. Of these 3925 references, 3688 were in citing articles published before the source article CRPI was published. 166 citing articles containing 198 references to source publications were published after the corresponding source article CRPI was published (range 1-5 such references/article; 19/166 (11%) articles had >1 reference). In summary, many articles cite retracted publications, with the majority of these references occurring before the retraction. However, very few publications assess the impact of the retracted citations, even though the findings of many might be altered, at least in part, by removal of the retracted citation.

Mark J. Bolland

Andrew Grey

Alison Avenell

Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem

撤稿出版物的引用：一个具有挑战性的问题

Universities are increasingly offering training in research integrity (RI) to enhance research quality and foster RI. Despite the importance of integrating scientific virtues into such training, there is a lack of assessment of virtue ethics-based RI training.

Marin Viđak

Ružica Tokalić

Ivan Buljan

Ana Marušić

Virtue ethics-based research integrity training intervention to change medical students’ attitudes and perceptions of organizational ethical climate: A randomized controlled trial

基于美德伦理的研究诚信培训干预对医学生态度及组织伦理氛围认知的影响：一项随机对照试验

: We consider a research model for manuscript evaluation using a two-stage process. In the first stage, the current submission reminds reviewers of previous reviewing experiences, and then, reviewers aggregate these past review experiences into a kind of norm for assessing the scientific contribution and clarity of writing required for a manuscript. In the second stage, the reviewer's norms are imposed on the manuscript under review, and the reviewer's attention is drawn to discrepancies between the norm retrieved from previous similar peer review experiences and the reality for this submission.

J. A. Garcia

J.J. Montero-Parodi

Rosa Rodriguez-Sanchez

J. Fdez-Valdivia

The association of gender, experience, and academic rank in peer-reviewed manuscript evaluation

同行评审手稿评估中性别、经验和学术职称的关联

Background: Polarized research has become a problem for the trustworthiness and applicability of scientific results. Accordingly, this paper addresses three key questions: 1) What is polarization in scientific research? 2) Why is such polarization problematic? 3) How can the problem be addressed?Methods: The first question is addressed by describing how the polarization has been characterized in the literature and by analysing an example before assessing existing definitions and elaborating a definition of polarization. The second question is answered by describing challenges with polarization found in the literature. The third question is addressed by investigating different explanations for and relevant mechanisms behind polarization in research, such as psychological, structural, epistemic and ontological, evaluative, and social-constructionist explanations. Moreover, several approaches from the philosophy of science are investigated.Results: Polarization in research is characterized by opposing and incommensurable positions that tend to stem from differences in basic values, and that are used to define, differentiate, bolster, and demarcate between groups and for reinforcing their identity. The problem with polarization is that it violates a broad range of basic norms in science, and hampers scientific progress, represents large opportunity costs, undermines trust in science and, subsequently that it undercuts the application of scientific results as well as future funding. There are many potential measures to reduce polarization. However, there are no simple solutions, as polarization is a complex phenomenon deeply rooted in basic human characteristics.Conclusion: Polarization is a ubiquitous phenomenon and a basic challenge for scientific research. It is crucial to increase the awareness of polarization, and a clear definition is key to study and address the problem. However, while there are many ways to actively address the problem of polarization in scientific research, there are no easy solutions. More research is needed to move from what we can do to what we should do.

Bjørn Hofmann

Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?

研究中的偏见：什么是偏见，为什么它是有问题的，以及如何解决它？

Abbreviation	Account. Res.
Journal Impact	2.76
Quartiles(Global)	MEDICAL ETHICS(Q1)

ISSN	0898-9621, 1545-5815
h-index	38
Top Journals	Yes

Publication Information	Publisher: Taylor and Francis Ltd.，Publishing cycle: Tri-annual，Journal Type: journal，Open Access Journals: No
Basic data	Year of publication: 1989，Proportion of original research papers: 92.16%，Self Citation Rate:14.30%， Gold OA Rate: 22.88%
Average review cycle	网友分享经验：>12周，或约稿
Average recruitment ratio	网友分享经验：容易

Accountability in Research

Journal Citation Format

A journal article with 1 author

A journal article with 2 authors

A journal article with 3 authors

A journal article with 5 or more authors

Books Citation Format

Thesis Citation Format

Web sites Citation Format

Patent Citation Format

Staying up late manually editing references? ivySCI automatically matches journals and helps you generate references with a single click.

Share Submission Experience

Citation of retracted publications: A challenging problem

Virtue ethics-based research integrity training intervention to change medical students’ attitudes and perceptions of organizational ethical climate: A randomized controlled trial

The association of gender, experience, and academic rank in peer-reviewed manuscript evaluation

Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?

On the (ab)use of special issues in scholarly journals

Polarization in research: What is it, why is it problematic, and how can it be addressed?

The association of gender, experience, and academic rank in peer-reviewed manuscript evaluation

Virtue ethics-based research integrity training intervention to change medical students’ attitudes and perceptions of organizational ethical climate: A randomized controlled trial

On the (ab)use of special issues in scholarly journals

On the epistemological and methodological implications of AI co-authorship