Search Results (2)

The Research Integrity Risk Index (RI²), introduced as a tool to identify universities at risk of compromised research integrity, adopts an overly reductive methodology by combining retraction rates and delisted journal proportions into a single, equally weighted composite score. While its stated aim is to promote accountability, this commentary critiques the RI² index for its flawed assumptions, lack of empirical validation, and disproportionate penalization of institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how RI² misinterprets retractions, misuses delisting data, and fails to account for diverse academic publishing environments, particularly in Indonesia, where many high-performing universities are unfairly categorized as “high risk” or “red flag.” The index’s uncritical reliance on opaque delisting decisions, combined with its fixed equal-weighting formula, produces volatile and context-insensitive scores that do not accurately reflect the presence or severity of research misconduct. Moreover, RI² has gained significant media attention and policy influence despite being based on an unreviewed preprint, with no transparent mechanism for institutional rebuttal or contextual adjustment. By comparing RI² classifications with established benchmarks such as the Scimago Institution Rankings and drawing from lessons in global development metrics, we argue that RI², although conceptually innovative, should remain an exploratory framework. It requires rigorous scientific validation before being adopted as a global standard. We also propose flexible weighting schemes, regional calibration, and transparent engagement processes to improve the fairness and reliability of institutional research integrity assessments. Full article

Sensory evaluation plays an important role in New Product Development (NPD) in food industry. In the present study, the current trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) were identified. The research was conducted in the first quarter of 2020. Computer assisted self-interviewing (CASI) technique for survey data collection was used. The sample included 122 respondents representing RIS countries that are the EU Member States and European Horizon 2020 Associated Countries that are classified as modest and moderate innovators according to European Innovation Scoreboard. The analysis presented in the paper allowed to describe the methods of sensory evaluation that can be used to support NPD in the food industry, identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry companies in RIS countries. The research results showed that almost 70% of companies apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD. The larger the company, the more often the methods of sensory evaluation are used in NPDs. Almost 60% of companies employing 51–100, 101–1000 and more than 5000 people, respectively declare the use of expert (analytical) test. However, regardless of size, most companies prefer consumer (affective) test to expert tests. Based on the results, it seems that the potential of usage sensory evaluation methods is not yet fully exploited in the food industry. Full article