Research Integrity Risk Index (Ri²): A Critical Evaluation Review
Downloads
Background: RI2 is a newly founded measure, designed to assess the research integrity in the world universities. This measure is based on two indicators; these are the published-research retraction rate and the rate of researches published in journals that have been delisted from Scopus and Web of Science indexes. The measure is characterized by its reliance on verifiable references including monitoring the number of retracted published studies, which enables the universities and other research relevant bodies to diagnose any research integrity concerns. This means that RI² is a mixed quantitative-qualitative measure. Purpose: This paper aims at evaluating RI² via analyzing its systematic methodology, data accuracy, transparency, and effectiveness. Method: The study was conducted through reviewing the available relevant literature, including the RI2 evaluation process mechanisms. Results: Although the approaches followed by the measure were qualitative quantitative, there are some criticisms that need to be solved to improve the performance of the measure. Conclusions: Caution is warranted, as research retraction rates can have different implications and may be indicative of high levels of monitoring and oversight rather than misconduct. Moreover, issues such as incomplete metadata and methodological decisions can influence results. Recommendations: It is argued that improving normalization methods and data quality would enhance RI²’s fairness and reliability.
1. Wright DE. Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause. FEBS Lett. 2024;598(18):2227–39.
2. Abed AH, Abdulwahid DA, Abdul-Hassan BAA and Habeeb OS. Challenges to Medical Research in Iraq. ACE Journal of Public Health and Community Medicine. 2021;1(4):43-47.
3. Meho LI, Haidar F, Al-Ameen M. Measuring institutional risk of research misconduct using retracted articles and publications in discontinued journals. [Preprint] 2024.
4. Ioannidis JPA, Pezzullo AM, Cristiano A, Boccia S, Baas J. Linking citation and research retraction data reveals the demographics of scientific research retractions among highly cited authors. PLoS Biol [Internet]. 2025;23(1):1–11. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pbio.3002999
5. Nature Editorial. Why research retractions data could be a powerful tool for cleaning up science. Nature. 2025 Feb 19;598.
6. Abdulwahid DA. Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²) and Iraqi Universities. Iraqi National Journal of Medicine. July 2025; 7(2):292-293
7. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(42):17028–33.
8. Cortegiani A, Ippolito M, Ingoglia G, Manca A, Cugusi L, Severin A, et al. Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: The GhoS(t)copus Project. F1000Research. 2020;9(May):1–32.
9. Brainard J. A comprehensive research retraction database begins to yield insights. Science. 2018;362(6413):390–1.
10. Marcus A, Oransky I. The research retraction dilemma: Why scientists self-correct. Research retraction Watch. https://research retractionwatch.com
11. Grieneisen ML, Zhang M. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. PLoS One. 2012;7(10).
12. Wang T, Xing Q, Li J. Global visibility and impact of scientific journals in non-English languages. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):199–216.
13. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):498–502.
14. Candal-Pedreira C, Guerra-Tort C, Ruano-Ravina A, Freijedo-Farinas F, Rey-Brandariz J, Ross JS, et al. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: a cross-sectional analysis of references and citations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;172.
15. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Grey A. Citation networks and the propagation of error. BMJ. 2019;364:l841.
