Scholarlink

Background <p>A reliable biomedical literature is critical to scientific advances and patient care. When concerns about the integrity of a publication are raised, it is very commonly by journal readers. Published evidence reports that responses from publishers to integrity concerns raised by readers are slow, incomplete, inconsistent and opaque. Here, we examine publisher responses and propose a schema for improving them.</p> Analyses <p>Supported by published evidence and examples from our extensive experience in communicating integrity concerns to journal and publishers, we conclude that many aspects of publisher responses to notification of integrity concerns are unsatisfactory. We propose that the quality of publisher responses and the outcomes of their integrity assessments could be improved by the adoption of a proactive and collaborative approach at manuscript submission, a primary focus on publication integrity instead of researcher behaviour, adoption of systematic and unconflicted assessment methodologies, commitment to timely, transparent and comprehensive assessments, timely, respectful communication with journal readers, and timely correction of the published record.</p> Conclusion <p>Publishers, who are ultimately responsible for the integrity of the biomedical literature, could and should substantially improve their response to the receipt of concerns about the integrity of publications in their journals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

What might a satisfactory response by journals and publishers to publication integrity concerns look like?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月4日

查看全文
  • Andrew Grey,
  • Alison Avenell,
  • Mark J. Bolland

摘要

Background

A reliable biomedical literature is critical to scientific advances and patient care. When concerns about the integrity of a publication are raised, it is very commonly by journal readers. Published evidence reports that responses from publishers to integrity concerns raised by readers are slow, incomplete, inconsistent and opaque. Here, we examine publisher responses and propose a schema for improving them.

Analyses

Supported by published evidence and examples from our extensive experience in communicating integrity concerns to journal and publishers, we conclude that many aspects of publisher responses to notification of integrity concerns are unsatisfactory. We propose that the quality of publisher responses and the outcomes of their integrity assessments could be improved by the adoption of a proactive and collaborative approach at manuscript submission, a primary focus on publication integrity instead of researcher behaviour, adoption of systematic and unconflicted assessment methodologies, commitment to timely, transparent and comprehensive assessments, timely, respectful communication with journal readers, and timely correction of the published record.

Conclusion

Publishers, who are ultimately responsible for the integrity of the biomedical literature, could and should substantially improve their response to the receipt of concerns about the integrity of publications in their journals.