Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41758311›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026

Time, Quality, and Integrity: Temporal Autonomy as a Missing Link in Research Assessment Reform.

Mads P Sørensen, Marina Lambert, Tine Ravn, Filip Vostal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mads P SørensenThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. mps@ps.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2455-2515
Marina LambertThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3109-6178
Tine RavnThe Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8462-5686
Filip VostalCentre for Science, Technology, and Society Studies (STSS), Institute of Philosophy of The Czech Academy of Sciences, Jilska 1, Prague 1, 110 00, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4628-9180

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper analyses temporality and the experience of increased speed in contemporary academia and its perceived influence on knowledge production. The study is grounded in theories of acceleration-related change in academia and examines the perceived effects of accelerated research processes on contemporary knowledge production, offering insights into the widespread use of questionable research practices (QRPs). Drawing on 36 focus group interviews with 172 researchers across seven European countries, the analysis reveals strikingly consistent perceptions of current reward and merit systems in academia, transcending differences in countries, disciplines, gender, and levels of seniority. These systems are widely perceived to reward speed and quantity at the expense of quality and integrity, thereby potentially undermining the robustness of the knowledge produced. The study thus shows a need for a stronger qualitative component in the assessment system, which aligns with the aims of the ‘research assessment reform movement’ (cf. DORA, CoARA). However, this paper argues that the research assessment reform movement needs to consider temporality in its efforts to reform research assessments. A stronger focus on ‘process time’ and ‘temporal autonomy’ is recommended to ensure that researchers and research units have adequate time to carry out all research tasks while maintaining integrity.

Indexed as

AcademiaEthics, ResearchKnowledgeResearchResearch PersonnelEuropeFocus GroupsHumansRewardTime FactorsAccelerationQRPsReform movementResearch assessmentResearch integrityResearch quality

Identifiers

PMID41758311
PMCPMC13009029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.