Mapping nine decades of research integrity studies (1935–2024): A scientometric analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research integrity is fundamental to responsible research practice. Despite attention, the intellectual structure and evolution of this field remains underexplored. This study maps the knowledge landscape of research integrity, identifying key themes, contributions, and trends. METHODS: A scientometric analysis was conducted on 6,895 records from Web of Science and Scopus (1935-2024). CiteSpace facilitated network analysis, including co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and co-citation patterns, while burst detection identified topics. RESULTS: Research integrity studies have grown significantly since the 1980s, with interdisciplinary collaboration. Keyword and co-citation analyses reveal a shift from early discussions on scientific misconduct to concerns such as open science, AI ethics, and research governance. A collaboration network has emerged, with leading contributions from North America, Europe, and Asia. CONCLUSIONS: Research integrity has matured into an interdisciplinary field, reaching academic consensus with growing integration of policies, regulations, and technology. Future research is expected to focus on AI's role in research integrity. Key areas of concern include algorithmic bias, automation ethics, and implications for scholarly publishing. Open science and transparency will remain central, particularly in addressing data fabrication, paper mills, and predatory publishing. Institutional policies will continue evolving, embedding integrity principles into governance and public engagement initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.148 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.095 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it