: Codes of conduct for research integrity provide ambivalent guidance on the role that the values of society as well as political and economic interests can or should play in scientific research. The development of clearer guidance on this matter in the future should consider the attitudes of researchers.: We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with holders of grants from the European Research Council and performed an inductive thematic analysis thereof.: We developed 4 themes reflecting 4 main attitudes of researchers toward the interactions between values and science: , , , and . While interviewees recognized that science is not completely value-free (), they still seemed to hold on to the so-called value-free ideal of science as a professional norm to minimize bias (, ). However, they showed awareness of the beneficial influence that values like diversity can have on research ().: Codes such as the tend not to problematize the tensions that emerge from having the value-free ideal of science as a norm and being guided by the values of society. Our findings suggest the time might be ripe for research integrity codes to address more directly the value issues intrinsic to science.

Computational Social Science (CSS) utilizes large digital datasets and computational methods to study human behavior, raising ethical concerns about data privacy, informed consent, and potential misuse. This study employs a constructivist grounded theory approach, analyzing 15 in-depth interviews with CSS practitioners in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. These countries share a European legal context regarding data privacy and hereby provide a comparable regulatory environment for examining ethical considerations. Findings highlight key challenges in CSS research, including power imbalances with data providers, uncertainties around surveillance and data privacy (especially with longitudinal data), and limitations of current ethics frameworks. Researchers face tensions between established ethical principles and practical realities, often feeling disempowered and lacking support from ethics boards due to their limited CSS expertise. Regulatory ambiguity further discourages research due to fear of sanctions. To foster responsible CSS practices, this paper recommends establishing specialized ethics boards with CSS expertise. It also advocates for acknowledging CSS's unique nature in research policy by developing tailored data guidelines and providing legal certainty through clear guidelines. Grounding recommendations in practitioners' experiences, this study offers actionable steps to help enable ethical CSS research.

In this paper, we explore the question "Why can't AI be a coauthor?" and reveal a rarely discussed reason.

Research is conducted in workplaces that can present safety hazards. Where researchers work in laboratories, safety hazards can arise through the need to operate complex equipment that can become unsafe if faulty or broken. The research literature also represents a workplace for millions of scientists and scholars, where publications can be considered as key research equipment. This article compares our current capacity to flag and repair faulty equipment in research laboratories versus the literature. Whereas laboratory researchers can place written notices on faulty and broken equipment to flag problems and the need for repairs, researchers have limited capacity to flag faulty research publications to other users. We argue that our current inability to flag erroneous publications quickly and at scale, combined with the lack of real-world incentives for journals and publishers to direct adequate resources toward post-publication corrections, results in the research literature representing an increasingly unsafe workplace. We describe possible solutions, such as the capacity to transfer signed PubPeer notices describing verifiable errors to relevant publications, and the reactivation of PubMed Commons.

Understanding review comments holds significant importance within the realm of scientific discourse. This study aims to conduct an empirical analysis of factors associated with praise in peer review. The study involved manual labeling of "praise" in 952 review comments drawn from 301 articles published in the British Medical Journal, followed by regression analysis. The study reveals that authors tend to receive longer praise when they share a cultural proximity with the reviewers. Additionally, it is observed that female reviewers are more inclined to provide praise In summary, these discoveries contribute valuable insights for the development of a constructive peer review process and the establishment of a more inclusive research culture.

This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations. Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member. Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work. This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.

The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic. To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided. Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.

Even though replication research has gained traction within academia over the recent years, it is not often well-received as a stand-alone thesis topic by supervisors and university administrators. In this qualitative investigation, we delve into the perspectives of academic supervisors on the feasibility of replication as a thesis topic within the field of applied linguistics (AL). Drawing on Institutional Theory, administrative pressures facing supervisors on what to be considered permissible for a thesis were also explored. By conducting semi-structured e-mail interviews with a global cohort of AL supervisors and a thematic analysis of their responses, a nuanced landscape was brought to light. Supervisors outlined numerous benefits associated with replication including fostering academic advancement as well as providing opportunities for reevaluating prior research. Nonetheless, they also pointed to several obstacles along the way, such as concerns over originality, constraints on time and resources, and the necessity for mentorship. Moreover, supervisors emphasized their pivotal role as decision-makers in accepting or rejecting replication for a thesis project, while acknowledging the partial influence of institutional pressures. Lastly, some implications and recommendations on allocating more resources to replication research are provided.

Effective leadership and management practices contribute to responsible, high-quality research and the well-being of team members. We describe the development and initial validation of a measure assessing principal investigators' leadership and management practices and a measure of research team practices.

This autoethnographic study examines email invitations for health researchers to publish in journals outside their expertise, exploring implications for interdisciplinary research and knowledge production. Over three months, email invitations to publish outside the author's field were documented and analysed thematically and through reflexive journaling. Five main themes in publication invitations were identified: emphasising novelty, promising rapid publication, appealing to research impact, flattering language, and persistent messaging. Reflexive analysis revealed complex factors shaping responses, including publication pressures, desires for prestige, and tensions between disciplinary norms and interdisciplinary collaboration. While invitations may present opportunities for novel collaborations, they often reflect predatory publishing practices. Navigating this landscape requires careful discernment, commitment to academic integrity, and reflexivity about one's positionality. The study underscores the need for researchers to critically interrogate the motivations behind such invitations. Further research could explore decision-making processes across disciplines and implications for academic publishing integrity and equity.

The increasing use of AI tools, particularly large language models like ChatGPT, in academic research has raised significant questions about authorship and transparency. This commentary emphasizes the need for a standardized AI contributions taxonomy to clarify AI's role in producing and publishing research outputs, ensuring ethical standards and maintaining academic integrity.

Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% ( = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% ( = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% ( = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including , , and methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.

Web archives offer researchers a promising source for large-scale longitudinal data collection; however, their complex social and technical infrastructures create an array of ethical concerns. In addition, there is a notable lack of guidance available for researchers hoping to conduct0 ethical research using web archives.

The recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led people to wonder whether they could act as an author on a scientific paper. This paper argues that AI systems should not be included on the author by-line. We agree with current commentators that LLMs are incapable of taking responsibility for their work and thus do not meet current authorship guidelines. We identify other problems with responsibility and authorship. In addition, the problems go deeper as AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities. From a broader publication ethics perspective, adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem. Deterrence is possible as backward-looking tools will likely be able to identify past AI usage. Finally, we question the value of using AI to produce more research simply for publication's sake.

Recent developments in the German academic landscape have seen a shifting approach to promoting research integrity. In 2019, the German Research Foundation (DFG) incentivized all research and higher education institutions to appoint ombudspersons who advise members of their institution in matters of good research practice or suspected research misconduct. These ombudspersons for good research practice, usually professors who act in this function on a voluntary basis, need institutional support to be prepared for and fulfill their diverse duties. The Ombuds-Modelle@BUA (2020) and OBUA - Ombudswesen@BUA (2021-2023) projects worked to advance the professionalization of ombudspersons in the Berlin research area by first investigating the current situation and then offering a meta-level of support in training, networking, and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, the OBUA project engaged in meta-research, investigating the status quo of local ombuds systems and demands for support. The project findings, discussed in this contribution, show that the professionalization of local ombuds systems has been evolving in past years, especially in the areas of training and networking. Infrastructural support measures, however, remain largely underdeveloped.

Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a "journal club" that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings - a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

The study examines the prevalence of plagiarism in hijacked journals, a category of problematic journals that have proliferated over the past decade.

Scientific misinformation is a much-discussed topic, and the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reliability in science and research. However, limiting misinformation is complicated because of the growing number of communication channels, in which scientific and nonscientific content are often mixed.

Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.