A reality check on publishing integrity tools in biomedical science

Abstract

Dear Clinical Rheumatology Editors, The discussion points put forward byMisra and Agarwal in Clinical Rheumatology related to research and publishing (R&P) ethics principles are laudable as they sought to identify many relevant aspects of R&P to fortify the field of rheumatology [1]. However, some of those tools are imperfect, as indicated next. While authors’ conflicts of interest (COIs) are most frequently discussed, increased focus is needed on editors’ COIs, not only from the perspective of peer review to avoid bias or favoritism but also more widely. Since editors serve as the gate-keepers of published biomedical information, their records and background need to be completely open and transparent, to ensure integrity [2, 3]. The advantages of ORCID are touted, yet ORCID is becoming increasingly abused for unethical and fraudulent publication practices, by supporting the “validation” of fake (i.e., non-existent) authors, including in sting operations [4] or authors that employ unethical publishing operations like paper mills [5]. If ORCID is to be considered a robust R&P integrity-fortification tool, then it needs to be able to distinguish all users clearly, and discern real from fake authors. The COPE and ICMJE ethics guidelines are often lauded as infallible fail-safe pillars of integrity. Yet, these same guidelines are unable to offer robust advice regarding predatory publishing, because predatory entities are ephemeral [6], nor any guidance regarding unethical sting operations [7]. Finally, Publons is also serving as a platform to amplify opacity through opaque peer reports whose content and quality are unknown, and to validate potentially predatory or unscholarly journals or publishers [8]. Early career researchers, as well as seasoned academics, need to appreciate that several of the tools that Misra and Agarwal have suggested as being pillars of R&P integrity, have flaws, porous aspects, and other fallibilities that weaken their ability to serve as failsafe effective protective measures in academia. A more realistic, even if not entirely pleasant, perspective of these issues needs to be maintained when advancing and fortifying R&P and seeking solutions for the fortification of these tools.