ArticleScience and engineering ethics2026
Time, Quality, and Integrity: Temporal Autonomy as a Missing Link in Research Assessment Reform.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.