Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study

Scholarly publishing is facing unprecedented challenges. Journal scholarly integrity and ethics have historically focused on author conduct and conflicts of interest. We address apparent journal and editor conflicts of interest. We focus on a series of events attending the publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal of a research article and four contemporaneously published editorials. A time series of events and questions which they engender follows the events description. We dissect and question behaviors and motivations, and accompanying transparency and accountability, and how these can affect article and journal credibility. The need for journals and scholarly publishing to recognize their own conflicts is discussed, as is the need for the science publishing to be self-correcting, in addition to science articles themselves. Author conflicts of interest and the need for attendant disclosure have become part of the publication process. Journal conflicts can be no less impactful and important, and merit the same disclosure, transparency, and rigor, in order to protect the public trust in biomedical science and publishing. When issues are encountered, science publishing needs to be self-correcting.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Published
2026-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00216-z
Primary Topic
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study

Evan D. Kharasch, WL Lanier, Jean‐François Pittet, Michael M. Todd
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Academic integrity and plagiarism
article

Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study

Evan D. Kharasch, WL Lanier, Jean‐François Pittet, Michael M. Todd
article en

Abstract

Scholarly publishing is facing unprecedented challenges. Journal scholarly integrity and ethics have historically focused on author conduct and conflicts of interest. We address apparent journal and editor conflicts of interest. We focus on a series of events attending the publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal of a research article and four contemporaneously published editorials. A time series of events and questions which they engender follows the events description. We dissect and question behaviors and motivations, and accompanying transparency and accountability, and how these can affect article and journal credibility. The need for journals and scholarly publishing to recognize their own conflicts is discussed, as is the need for the science publishing to be self-correcting, in addition to science articles themselves. Author conflicts of interest and the need for attendant disclosure have become part of the publication process. Journal conflicts can be no less impactful and important, and merit the same disclosure, transparency, and rigor, in order to protect the public trust in biomedical science and publishing. When issues are encountered, science publishing needs to be self-correcting.

Research Integrity and Peer ReviewVol. 11(1)
University of Minnesota (US), Mayo Clinic (US), Duke University (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Duke Energy (United States) (US), Clinical Research Institute (US), Duke Medical Center (US), Duke University Hospital (US)
University of Minnesota
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Academic integrity and plagiarism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.