Accountability in Research

Tang, Gengyan

2025 Accountability in Research

doi: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2449041pmid: 39749792

Background: The multifaceted nature of research integrity (RI) calls for the adoption of innovative methodologies to achieve a more thorough understanding. Mixed methods research (MMR) provides a valuable framework by combining diverse data sources, enabling a more nuanced exploration of complex research questions.Methods: This paper reviews seven RI studies employing MMR to identify methodological shortcomings. It introduces key concepts and typologies of MMR and proposes actionable strategies to enhance methodological rigor and innovation.Results: The review identified three key issues in current MMR applications: 1. Insufficient articulation of methodological contributions. 2. Limited visualization of quantitative and qualitative data integration. 3. Minimal engagement with recent MMR advancements. To address these gaps, a targeted To-Do List was created, offering actionable strategies for improving methodological rigor. Additionally, underutilized MMR designs, such as convergent and exploratory sequential designs, were recommended to strengthen data synthesis and expand analytical perspectives.Conclusions: MMR provides valuable opportunities to enhance RI research. This paper offers practical guidance for adopting MMR, addressing methodological gaps, and fostering robust, integrative research practices.

Biju V. V., ; Jose, Sanjo; Franklin J., ; Jasimudeen S.,

2025 Accountability in Research

doi: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2446558pmid: 39743744

Background Researchers are increasingly accessing scientific articles through unauthorized websites like Sci-Hub. Sci-Hub contains retracted articles, including those which are not labelled as retracted, and this is a potential threat to academic research. Methods This study analyses the extent of the availability of retracted articles within the Sci-Hub, particularly focusing on the presence of unlabeled retracted articles (URA) which may inadvertently be used in subsequent research, thus propagating flawed findings. The authors identified 16925 English-language research articles retracted between 2003 and 2022 indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases. These articles were cross-checked with Sci-Hub to ascertain whether they were appropriately labelled as retracted. Results The investigation revealed that 84.83% of the retracted articles available on Sci-Hub do not have any indication of their retracted status. These URA could potentially be reused by researchers, unaware of their retracted status. The availability of URA in the field of health sciences is particularly high, which indicates a significant risk of their unintended use and further citation in future research. Conclusions This study underscores the crucial need for stringent implementation of regulatory measures on retraction suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or newly published National Information Standards Organization (NISO) recommendations.

Moher, David; Vieira Armond, Anna Catharina

2025 Accountability in Research

doi: 10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451pmid: 39772993

Peer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer’s experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.