The field of research is moving towards a greater emphasis on integrity and transparency, with a focus on understanding the complexities of collaborative work and the impact of metrics on research outcomes. Studies have shown that the pressure to publish and the emphasis on metrics can lead to vulnerabilities in global ranking systems, highlighting the need for reform to ensure that research is valued for its quality and significance rather than just its quantity. Meanwhile, research on collaborative teams has revealed substantial disparities in workload distribution, with clear positional patterns in task assignments and a significant division of labor between authors. The practice of referencing research data is also becoming increasingly important, with studies showing that datasets are often not formally cited, and effective incentive structures are lacking. Noteworthy papers in this area include:

• A study on bibliometric anomalies in global university rankings, which found patterns consistent with strategic metric optimization and highlighted vulnerabilities in ranking systems.
• A large-scale analysis of scientific author contributions, which revealed significant disparities in workload distribution and a structured hierarchy within collaborative teams.
• An examination of research data referencing, which found that 27.9% of datasets in a repository were referenced at least once, and highlighted the need for more effective incentive structures.
• A review of international collaborations in Computer Science, which found that collaborations with highly publishing countries tend to have lower retraction rates and higher citation rates.