Accountability in Research

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Journal description

Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of new procedures, standards and policies to encourage the ethical conduct of research for enhancing the validity of research results. The journal publishes original empirical, methodological, policy and theoretical papers, cases studies, conference reports and book reviews that address issues of integrity and accountability in research. Book reviews are published periodically on topics relevant to the journal's scope. Accountability in Research seeks to serve a broad range of scientists and administrators in academia, industry and government. While relevant to any discipline, the journal focuses in particular on biotechnology, chemistry, medicine, pharmacology, toxicology, pathology, environmental science, and clinical trials.

Current impact factor: 0.72

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2015
2013 / 2014 Impact Factor 0.717
2012 Impact Factor 0.756
2011 Impact Factor 0.618

Impact factor over time

Impact factor
Year

Additional details

5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 6.40
Immediacy index 0.09
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00
Website Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance website
Other titles Accountability in research (Online), Accountability in research
ISSN 0898-9621
OCLC 49941205
Material type Document, Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Internet Resource, Computer File, Journal / Magazine / Newspaper

Publisher details

Taylor & Francis

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Some individual journals may have policies prohibiting pre-print archiving
    • On author's personal website or departmental website immediately
    • On institutional repository or subject-based repository after either 12 months embargo
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • On a non-profit server
    • Published source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
    • Set statements to accompany deposits (see policy)
    • The publisher will deposit in on behalf of authors to a designated institutional repository including PubMed Central, where a deposit agreement exists with the repository
    • STM: Science, Technology and Medicine
    • Publisher last contacted on 25/03/2014
    • This policy is an exception to the default policies of 'Taylor & Francis'
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Of 188 government-monitored air toxics, diesel particulate matter (DPM) causes seven times more cancer than all the other 187 air toxics combined, including benzene, lead, and mercury. Yet, DPM is the only air toxic not regulated more stringently under the Clean Air Act, as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). One reason is that regulators use flawed standards of scientific evidence. The article argues (1) that DPM meets all six specified evidentiary criteria, any one of which is sufficient for HAP regulation and (2) that regulators' standards of evidence for denying HAP status to DPM (no DPM unit-risk estimate, inadequate dose-response data, alleged weak mechanistic data) err logically and scientifically, set the evidence bar too high, delay regulation, and allow 21,000 avoidable DPM deaths annually in the U.S.
    Accountability in Research 05/2015; 22(3):162-191. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.956867
  • Accountability in Research 05/2015; 22(3):198-199. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.922381
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ethical codes of conduct exist in almost every profession. Field-specific codes of conduct have been around for decades, each articulating specific ethical and professional guidelines. However, there has been little empirical research on researchers' perceptions of these codes of conduct. In the present study, we interviewed faculty members in six research disciplines and identified five themes bearing on the circumstances under which they use ethical guidelines and the underlying reasons for not adhering to such guidelines. We then identify problems with the manner in which codes of conduct in academia are constructed and offer solutions for overcoming these problems.
    Accountability in Research 05/2015; 22(3):123-138. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.955607
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical research studies in children are classified by risk into three major categories. These are as follows: a) minimal risk studies, b) more than minimal risk studies but with benefit, and c) studies with minor increase over minimal risk but with no benefit. Pediatric Phase I oncology trials, which are conducted in a highly vulnerable population of severely ill children with cancer, are designed to establish safety and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), as well as establish dose limiting toxicity (DLT). These types of studies can be associated with significant risk. The research design of such high- risk studies, which comprise short-term treatments with varying doses, is generally not associated with any clinical benefit. Classification of the research category in these pediatric studies poses a special problem for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with major implications for the consenting process. The challenges associated with the classification of such studies are discussed in this article.
    Accountability in Research 05/2015; 22(3):139-147. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.919229
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The University of Michigan Human Research Protection Program formed a six-member committee to analyze the nature of Institutional Review Board (IRB) staff and board contingencies for the approval of informed consent documents. Of the 100 studies examined, 87% had one or more informed consent contingencies. “Omissions” in documentation (40%) and “better clarity” (24%) accounted for the majority, while “word-smithing” accounted for only 10%. This is one of the first studies to examine the nature of IRB contingencies as they relate to informed consent documents. Educational efforts targeting completeness in documentation and clarity on the part of study teams, and discouraging “word-smithing” on the part of IRBs, could reduce the number of informed consent contingencies and expedite the IRB approval process.
    Accountability in Research 04/2015; 22(4). DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.956866
  • Accountability in Research 04/2015; 22(4):201-204. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2015.1015835
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We analyze the current situation of clinical research regulatory overview in Egypt to acknowledge the strengths and define the frailties, thus inciting relevant stakeholders to find solutions and bring about change. Uniquely, Egypt possesses favorable factors ideal for a dynamic clinical research market: accessible subjects, a mosaic panel of research areas, and incomparably low cost. Yet, with a majority of participant population needy and illiterate, and in absence of robust legislative constraints, concerns are increasingly being raised, whether ethical pitfalls of clinical research are adequately addressed, and whether the safety and the rights of subjects are constantly prioritized and maintained. In a descriptive explicit literature review, we identify, review, and interpret findings from recent publications backed up by existing data derived from current declared regulations and personal experience in the field. Inferences were made that despite an affiliation to international referential guidelines, real settings implementations are far from being consistent or adherently conforming. Focal attempts at reform are observed, but without joint stakeholders’ support, those attempts are doomed never to get off the ground.
    Accountability in Research 04/2015; 22(4):222-236. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.956869
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A strong trend to move from print to online publication is largely perceived in scientific and nonscientific fields. A growing number of publishers increasingly opt for online publication as an option or a compulsory alternative. From readers’ perspective, this is a highly appreciated facility, but from the author’s, things are different mainly because of excessive article processing charges (APC) that make the open access system sometimes as a hindrance for many authors but a lucrative enterprise for many shareholders, enticing the most traditional and conservative publishers.
    Accountability in Research 04/2015; 22(4):245-247. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.989220
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The planned reform of the regulation of clinical trials in Spain has reopened the debate over how to regulate research-related injuries. Act 29/2006 and Royal Decree 223/2004 regulate the insurance of research-related injuries, and they include a general clause requiring mandatory insurance and imposing a no-fault compensation system; they also contain an exception clause enabling clinical trials to be carried out without insurance under some conditions, and an exclusion clause excluding compensation when there is no causal connection between injuries and a clinical trial. National legislation is under review, affecting the requirement of mandatory insurance and paving the road to a liability system based on negligence, which will affect the level of protection of the persons enrolled in clinical trials because it would not ensure compensation. Regulatory texts on individuals' participation as research subjects should include not only mandatory insurance, but also a no-fault compensation system for cases when voluntary research subjects are injured, irrespective of negligence.
    Accountability in Research 03/2015; 22(2):106-19. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.928210
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cooperation between a journal editor and the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in addressing investigations of research misconduct, each performing their own responsibilities while keeping each other informed of events and evidence, can be critical to the professional and regulatory resolution of a case. This paper describes the history of one of ORI's most contentious investigations that involved falsification of research on Parkinson's disease patients by James Abbs, Professor of Neurology, University of Wisconsin, published in the journal Neurology, which was handled cooperatively by the authors, who were the chief ORI investigator and the Editor-in-Chief of Neurology, respectively.
    Accountability in Research 03/2015; 22(2):63-80. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.901894
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) have become an increasingly common feature of clinical trial oversight, yet a paucity of legal or ethical frameworks govern these Boards' composition or operation, or their relationship with other actors with monitoring responsibilities. This paper argues that prevailing structural gaps are impeding harmonized systems for monitoring the ongoing ethical acceptability of clinical trials. Particular tensions stem from DSMBs' sweeping discretion in deciding whether and when to recommend that a trial should be terminated or amended based on safety and efficacy information. This discretion becomes especially challenging in light of DSMBs' monopoly over emerging trial data, which prevents Institutional Review Boards, sponsors, and investigators from participating in certain pivotal and ethically charged decisions. To address these disconnects, I advocate for strengthened pre-trial and post-trial communication in addition to innovative strategies to support DSMB decision making through the life of a trial.
    Accountability in Research 03/2015; 22(2):81-105. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.919230
  • Accountability in Research 03/2015; 22(2):120-1. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.882781
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical vaccine trials have been lacking in the pediatric population due to lower consent rate of the parents. We assessed characteristics of the parents, and motives and barriers underlying the decision process. The results of the questionnaire were evaluated by multivariate analysis. Parents who opted in were younger and more often employed than the parents who opted out. The most important motives were receiving detailed information about trial and benefits to human health. The qualified education of medical community and public about the rationale and benefits of trials is essential for opt-in.
    Accountability in Research 01/2015; 22(1):1-13. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.882779
  • Accountability in Research 01/2015; 22(1):61. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2013.877349
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For 6,000 years, humans have known about smelter hazards. Yet these metals threats continue. Why? This commentary provides one preliminary answer. It (1) summarizes the history of smelter pollution and (2) suggests that at least 3 problems-especially flawed smelter-polluter science-allow continuing health threats. It (3) illustrates this flawed science by using one of the most dangerous of U.S. former smelters, in DePue, Illinois. There polluters are avoiding violating the law yet trying to minimize smelter-caused health threats, thus clean-up costs, by using two questionable scientific claims. The causality-denial claim denies that smelter metals cause neurodegenerative diseases. The biomagnification-denial claim denies that food-chain biomagnification of smelter metals can put citizens at risk. The commentary shows both claims err, and (4) suggests ways to address flawed smelter science and resulting health harms.
    Accountability in Research 01/2015; 22(1):41-60. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.939746
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.
    Accountability in Research 01/2015; 22(1):22-40. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The case-based approach to learning is popular among many applied fields. However, results of case-based education vary widely on case content and case presentation. This study examined two aspects of case-based education-outcome valence and case elaboration methods-in a two-day case-based Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) ethics education program. Results suggest that outcome information is an integral part of a quality case. Furthermore, valence consistent outcomes may have certain advantages over mixed valence outcome information. Finally, students enjoy and excel working with case material, and the use of elaborative interrogation techniques can significantly improve internally-focused ethical sensemaking strategies associated with personal biases, constraints, and emotions.
    Accountability in Research 03/2014; 21(5):265-299. DOI:10.1080/08989621.2013.848803