Étiquette : research integrity

Catégories
EN

Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

Author : Ben Rawlins

This study examines the relationship between research integrity and open access (OA) publishing models using data from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex. Analysing 60,608 retracted publications from 2009 to 2024, the article traces how retraction patterns have shifted alongside the expansion of OA, with gold OA surpassing closed access as the dominant modality among retracted articles by 2023.

The analysis also highlights the economic dimensions of research integrity and OA, with an estimated US$41.9 million in article processing charges (APCs) collected by publishers for research that was later retracted.

These findings raise concerns about APC‑based publishing models that directly link publisher revenue to publication volume, creating structural tensions for editorial oversight and quality control. Rather than framing OA as inherently more or less prone to integrity failures, the article argues that these challenges reflect broader incentive structures within contemporary scholarly publishing.

Addressing them will require co‑ordinated governance efforts among publishers, funders, libraries and research institutions to ensure that OA is matched by accountability, transparency and trust in scholarly research.

URL : Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.763

Catégories
EN

(De)generative AI and research integrity

Author : Jurij Selan

The phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently paradoxical. On one hand, it is generative. This generative quality has benefited contemporary research by enabling researchers to generate ideas and enhance research opportunities while saving time and costs.

On the other hand, the generative nature of AI appears inevitably to lead to antagonism, resulting in entropy through model collapse and becoming degenerative. In this article, we explore the extent to which the implicitly degenerative nature of AI could be regarded as the main long-term threat to research integrity (RI), as many other problems associated with the impact of AI on RI may be seen as its effects.

In the first part, we provide an overview of the impact of AI on RI, including AI ethics, the use of AI in education (AIED), AI as a “grey area” or questionable research practice (QRP), the implementation of principles for AI use in codes of conduct, and the attitudes of academic publishers and universities towards AI. In the second part, we examine how the collapse of generative AI into degenerative AI poses a critical threat to RI in the future.

We emphasise that the only way to prevent the harmful effects of the degenerative nature of AI on RI is to retain the original human-generated datasets as the basis for AI systems and continually add new human-generated datasets.

One of the key principles regarding the impact of AI on RI is therefore the responsibility to ensure that AI remains grounded in human-created reality. This, however, leads us to the sociotechnical perspective on degenerative AI, which we address in the third part, where we evaluate the broader social and moral impact of degenerative AI.

We stress a fundamental shift in human trust requirements towards society and make a plea for more inclusive anticipatory risk management of AI with respect to RI.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-08248-y
Catégories
EN

Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? – A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies

Authors : Simon Fuglsang, Serge P.J.M. Horbach, Mads P. Sørensen, Niels Mejlgaard

Background

In response to widespread concerns about research integrity, recent years have seen numerous efforts to safeguard against research misconduct and questionable research practices. Research-performing organizations are among the key actors involved in implementing such efforts. However, little is known about the effectiveness of organizational policy initiatives.

Methods and materials

In this study, we investigate the ability of organizations to change researchers’ behavior through the perspective of the researcher. We analyze data from the International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS), a survey of researchers in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the USA. We specifically investigate whether researchers’ perceptions of their organizations’ research integrity policies relate to the degree to which they engage in questionable research practices.

Results

We find that awareness of policies, evaluations of the effectiveness of policies, as well as confidence in their organizations’ research integrity policies all relate to lower levels of engagement in questionable research practices. However, we also find that this relationship is highly sensitive to both researchers’ research integrity self-confidence and their general attitudes toward research integrity.

Conclusions

As such, while findings indicate that organizations’ policy efforts can influence researcher behavior, this influence is contingent on researcher acceptance and empowerment.

URL : Shared responsibility to address questionable research practices? – A study of perceived efficacy of organizational research integrity policies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2679561

Catégories
EN

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

Author : Malik Sallam

The peer review system, once a noble aspiration, now lags behind the accelerating demands of modern science.

This opinion piece calls for a decisive departure from that peer review system and advocates for a return to a more accountable, editorially driven model of scholarly evaluation. Scientific editors – already vested with decision‑making authority – should no longer outsource their judgement to external referees. Instead, they must reclaim their rightful role as the primary arbiters of scientific merit.

Too often, editorial judgement is diluted by ritualized consultation, where peer review delays innovation, rewards consensus and obscures responsibility.

I argue for a future in which academic editors decide independently, sign their decisions and are recognized – publicly and professionally – for the intellectual stewardship they provide. By linking editorial work to scientific databases such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, we can incentivize rigour, transparency and accountability.

This model would not erode scientific integrity but elevate it, replacing bureaucracy with responsibility. It is time to shed the cloak of anonymity and return authority – and credit – to those best positioned to shape the scientific record; the academic editors themselves.

URL : Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.714

Catégories
EN

A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings

Authors : Brian A. Nosek, David B. Allison, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, A. Beau Nielsen, Susan M. Wolf

Vigorous debate has erupted over the trustworthiness of scientific research findings in a number of domains. The question “what makes research findings trustworthy?” elicits different answers depending on whether the emphasis is on research integrity and ethics, research methods, transparency, inclusion, assessment and peer review, or scholarly communication. Each provides partial insight.

We offer a systems approach that focuses on whether the research is accountable, evaluable, well-formulated, has been evaluated, controls for bias, reduces error, and whether the claims are warranted by the evidence. We tie each of these components to measurable indicators of trustworthiness for evaluating the research itself, the researchers conducting the research, and the organizations supporting the research.

Our goals are to offer a framework that can be applied across methods, approaches, and disciplines and to foster innovation in development of trustworthiness indicators. Developing valid indicators will improve the conduct and assessment of research and, ultimately, public understanding and trust.

URL : A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536736123

Catégories
EN

Why the Current Model oAcademic Publishing Is Ethically Flawed—and What We Can Do to Change It

Author : Emilia Kaczmarek

This article offers a reasoned call for urgent reform of the academic journal publishing system. It focuses on the ethical flaws of the current for-profit model. This model enables the transfer of public funds into the profit margins of private companies that add no meaningful value to research and even limit access to knowledge.

The article describes how feedback loops in metrics used in the evaluation of scientific publishing exacerbate structural inequalities and make it difficult to break out of the system. Moreover, the opportunity for easy profit attracts dishonest actors and fuels the rise of predatory journals, which in turn corrodes public trust in science.

Without systemic reforms, the current system could also undermine artificial intelligence–driven research outcomes by enabling models to be trained on a growing number of substandard scientific publications. The article concludes with ten specific proposals for action, aimed at stimulating further discussion within and beyond academia.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2025-0047

Catégories
EN

Researchers and Research Data: Improving and Incentivising Sharing and Archiving

Authors : Minna Ventsel, Beth Montague-Hellen

There has been a lot of discussion within the scientific community around the issues of reproducibility in research, with questions being raised about the integrity of research due to failure to reproduce or confirm the findings of some of the studies. Researchers need to adhere to the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles to contribute to collaborative and open science, but these open data principles can also support reproducibility and issues around ensuring data integrity.

This article uses observations and metrics from data sharing and research integrity related activities, undertaken by a Research Integrity and Data Specialist at the Francis Crick Institute, to discuss potential reasons behind a slow uptake of FAIR data practices. We then suggest solutions undertaken at the Francis Crick institute which can be followed by institutes and universities to improve the integrity of research from a data perspective.

One major solution discussed is the implementation of a data archive system at the Francis Crick Institute to ensure the integrity of data long term, comply with our funders’ data management requirements, and to safeguard our researchers against any potential research integrity allegations in the future.

URL : Researchers and Research Data: Improving and Incentivising Sharing and Archiving

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/v19i1.983