Explore the vast range of titles available.

The aims of this study are (1) to analyze the references cited by retracted papers originated from paper mills; (2) to analyze the citations received by retracted papers originated from paper mills; and (3) to analyze the potential relationships existing between paper mill papers and their references and their citations. This study was a cross-sectional study. All original papers retracted in 2022 identified as having originated from paper mills and had been published at least 12 months before their retraction (hereinafter “source-retracted papers”) were included. The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the source-retracted papers and Web of Science was used to identify the references contained within them and the citations received by them. We described the characteristics of the papers and journals. Additionally, 2 networks of source-retracted papers mutually interconnected via their citations and references were built: 1 with only retracted references and retracted citations and the other with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted). A total of 416 paper mill papers retracted in 2022 (sourced retracted papers) were identified, with a median of 1247 (interquartilic range, 907.8–1673.5) days between publication and retraction. Of all authors identified, 92.3% were affiliated with Chinese institutions. There were 14,411 references contained in the source-retracted papers and 8479 citations received by them; the median number of references and citations was 35 (29–40) and 16 (9–25), respectively. In total, 473 references and citations had also been retracted for being paper mill papers. Among the 416 sourced-retracted papers, 169 (41.9%) and 178 (42.8%) were referenced or were cited by at least another retracted paper, the majority of which also originated from paper mills. The first network analysis, which included source-retracted papers along with their retracted references and citations, found 3 clusters of 53, 48, and 44 retracted papers that were mutually interconnected. The second network analysis, with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted) identified a large cluster of 2530 interconnected papers. Retracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills, displaying inter-relationships. Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications. •This study reveals the potential interconnection of retracted paper mill papers through their references and citations.•Retracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills.•This is the first analysis of references and citations in retracted papers associated with paper mills.•Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications.

Editors and peer reviewers of research articles may have conflicts of interest that impact their evaluations. We aimed to characterize medical journals' conflict of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers. In this cross-sectional study, we randomly sampled 277 medical journals from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. Two authors independently retrieved public conflict of interest policies and disclosures for editors and peer reviewers from journal websites and retrieved publishers' policies when journals also referred to them (January to June 2024). We used content analysis to analyze policies and multivariable mixed-effects logistic regressions to estimate the associations between journal characteristics and having a policy. After excluding 27 journals, we included 250 medical journals in English, of which 177 (71%) had a conflict of interest policy for editors and 174 (70%) for peer reviewers. Of journals with a policy, 137 (77%) and 129 (74%) described disclosure requirements, 160 (90%) and 163 (94%) described management strategies, 124 (70%) and 106 (61%) described policy enforcement strategies, and 17 (10%) and 15 (9%) described processes for appealing decisions. All 4 concepts were addressed in 16 (9%) policies for editors and in 11 (6%) for peer reviewers. Having a policy for editors was associated with higher journal impact factor (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.56) and Committee on Publication Ethics membership (OR: 3.50; 95% CI: 1.42–8.65). Having a policy for peer reviewers was associated with higher journal impact factor (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.97–1.37) and open access journal (OR: 4.59; 95% CI: 1.11–18.93). For a subgroup of journals referring to their publishers' policy, the content was concordant for 5 (11%) of 45 journals for editors and 4 (9%) of 47 journals for peer reviewers. Of 250 journals, 14 (6%) had public declarations of interest from editors, and 3 (1%) from peer reviewers. More than two-thirds of medical journals have conflict of interest policies for editors and reviewers; however, policies vary in comprehensiveness. There is potential to improve the content of conflict of interest policies and the transparency of interests in medical journals. Before a scientific study is published as a research paper in a medical journal, it is evaluated by the journal editors and other researchers, known as peer reviewers. This process is used to assess and ensure the quality and trustworthiness of the research and to assist editors in deciding whether to publish the paper. Editors and peer reviewers, however, are not necessarily neutral and may have personal interests that can influence their opinions. For example, they may have personal relationships with the study authors or have financial relationships with a company whose product is investigated in the study, which could result in conflicts of interest. Although most journals have policies addressing study authors' conflicts of interest, little is known about the practices and policies of medical journals concerning editors' and peer reviewers' conflicts of interest. In our study, we randomly selected 250 medical journals and examined their public conflict of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers, as well as whether these policies aligned with their publishers' policies. In addition, we assessed whether the interests of editors and peer reviewers were publicly disclosed. We estimated the proportion of journals with available policies, assessed which journal characteristics were associated with having a policy, and analyzed the content of policies. Of the 250 medical journals, we found that 177 (71%) journals had a conflict of interest policy for editors and 174 (70%) for peer reviewers, but their interests were very rarely publicly disclosed. The policies often contained limited information and were often only described in detail in the publishers' policies, and sometimes information in the journal's and the publisher's policies was in disagreement. Finally, policies rarely describe how journal staff assess interests, how these assessments may influence the journal's editorial process, and how journals enforce the consequences of policy violations. There is substantial potential for medical journals to improve their conflict of interest policies for editors and peer reviewers, as well as the transparency of their interests in medical journals. •Over two-thirds of medical journals had conflict of interest policies for editors and reviewers.•Most policies included strategies for disclosure, management, and enforcement.•Policies varied in comprehensiveness, and most lacked details on central concepts.•Medical journals rarely had public declarations of interest from editors and peer reviewers.

In this Editorial, representatives of the International Committee of Medical Editors discuss the need for multi-stakeholder involvement to recognize and counter the actions of predatory journals.In this Editorial, representatives of the International Committee of Medical Editors discuss the need for multi-stakeholder involvement to recognize and counter the actions of predatory journals.

To collate, review, and comment upon publishers’ response to integrity concerns. We conducted a narrative review of publications reporting the responses of publishers to concerns about the integrity of research published in their journals. We also drew upon extensive personal experience and a new analysis of publisher responses to integrity concerns about 172 clinical trial publications by a single research group 5 years after the concerns were raised simultaneously with affected publishers. Existing evidence reports that slow, incomplete, and opaque responses from publishers to integrity concerns are common, in both clinical and preclinical disciplines. When we raised very similar concerns about a large set of journal articles simultaneously with publishers, times to resolution varied markedly, and outcomes ranged from no editorial action to all papers retracted. Publishers' responses to notification of concerns about the integrity of publications in their journals are markedly inconsistent, both in their timing and the nature of their editorial decisions. The reasons for these inconsistencies are unknown but could be addressed by a collaborative and transparent process involving publisher integrity staff and academics with expertise in publication integrity. Understanding the reasons for the disparate outcomes is likely to facilitate improvements which will enhance the trustworthiness of the biomedical literature. Existing evidence reports that publishers are slow to assess concerns about the reliability of research publications, and their assessments produce markedly inconsistent outcomes. Our finding of widely disparate outcomes of publisher assessments of overlapping concerns about 172 clinical trials by a single research group reinforces this point. Improving the timeliness, transparency, and systematicity of publisher assessments is likely to enhance the reliability of published research. •Untrustworthy publications compromise health and scientific progress.•Publisher responses to integrity concerns are markedly inconsistent.•Processes to achieve integrity assessments should be improved.

The aim of this study was to reflect on the origins and meanings of names describing investment practices that integrate a consideration of environmental, social and corporate governance issues in the academic literature. A review of 190 academic papers spanning the period from 1975 to mid-2009 was conducted. This exploratory study evaluated the associations and disassociations of the primary name assigned to this genre of investment with variables grouped into five domains, namely Primary Ethical Position, Investment Strategy, Publication Date, Regions Covered and Periodical Type. The study indicated that papers coded as expressing a deontological ethical position were more frequently associated with the name Ethical Investment, whereas those with an ambiguous ethical position were less frequently associated with Ethical Investment. Three investment strategies (positive screening, best-in-class and causebased investing) were unusually associated with the primary name Responsible Investment. A strong preference for the name Ethical Investment was noted in the United Kingdom, and contrasted starkly with an apparent aversion for this name in the United States. The name Ethical Investment is significantly more frequently used in journals dealing with ethics, business ethics and philosophy than in finance, economic and investment journals. Finally, the study yielded some weak hints that the name Responsible Investment might perhaps be linked to an egoist ethical position. On the basis of this, and because these have already been substantively linked through the Principles for Responsible Investment in the popular discourse, we follow the heuristic tradition set by Sparkes (Business Ethics Eur Rev 10:194-201, 2001), and propose that Responsible Investment be defined as 'Investment practices that integrate a consideration of ESG issues with the primary purpose of delivering higher-risk-adjusted financial returns'.

Visual abstracts (VAs) lack study-specific reporting guidelines and are increasingly used as stand-alone sources in medical research dissemination although not designed for this purpose. Therefore, our objectives were to describe 1) completeness of reporting in VAs and corresponding written abstracts (WAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 2) the extent and type of spin (ie, any reporting pattern that could distort result interpretation and mislead readers) in VAs and WAs of RCTs with a statistically nonsignificant primary outcome. We conducted a cross-sectional study evaluating VAs and WAs of RCTs published between January 1, 2021, and March 3, 2023. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed for reports of RCTs published in the 15 highest impact factor journals from six medical fields (among which 34 journals producing VAs of RCTs were identified). One reviewer identified primary reports of RCTs published with a VA and randomly selected a maximum of 10 reports from each journal to avoid overrepresentation. The completeness of reporting assessment was based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for abstracts. Spin was explored using a standardized spin classification for RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcome results. Both assessments were conducted in duplicate, with discussion until consensus in case of discrepancy. A random sample of 253 reports from 34 journals was identified. The information provided in VAs was frequently incomplete: primary outcome identification, primary outcome results, and harms were respectively described or displayed in only 47% (n = 116/247), 30% (n = 75/247), and 35% (n = 88/253). Reporting was slightly better for some items in WAs, although still unsatisfactory. Among trials with nonsignificant primary outcome results (n = 101), 57% (n = 58) of the VAs and 55% (n = 56) of the WAs exhibited at least 1 type of spin. Posthoc analyses showed VAs produced by journal editors of high-impact general medical journals were more complete and more accurate than those produced by specialty journals or authors. The information conveyed in VAs was frequently incomplete and inaccurate, highlighting the urgent need to refer to appropriate specific reporting guidelines to avoid misinterpretation by readers. [Display omitted] •VAs are increasingly used by high-impact medical journals.•VAs and WAs of randomized trials often fail to report key information.•“Spin” was often identified in VAs and WAs in case of nonsignificant primary results.•Authors should consider appropriate VA-specific reporting guidelines.

To analyze data sharing practices among authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in seven high-ranking anesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016. We analyzed data sharing statements in 619 included RCTs and contacted their corresponding authors, asking them to share de-identified raw data from trial. Of the 86 (14%) authors who responded to our query for data sharing, only 24 (4%) provided the requested data. Only one of those 24 had a data sharing statement in the published manuscript. Only 24 (4%) of manuscripts contained statements suggesting a willingness to share trial data; only one of those authors actually shared data. There was no difference in proportion of data sharing between studies with commercial and nonprofit funding. Among the 62 authors who refused to provide data, reasons were seldom provided. When reasons were provided, common themes included issues regarding data ownership and participant privacy. Only one of the seven analyzed journals encouraged authors toward data sharing. Willingness to share data among anesthesiology RCTs is very low. To achieve widespread availability of de-identified trial data, journals should request their publication, as opposed to only encouraging authors to do so.

To examine trends in and determinants of the number of authors in clinical studies. We analyzed determinants of the number of authors in 633 articles of randomized trials and 313 articles of nonrandomized studies included in large meta-analyses (seven and six topics, respectively). Analyses were adjusted for topic. We also evaluated 310 randomly sampled case reports that had an abstract and described a single case. After adjusting for topic and other determinants, for both randomized trials and nonrandomized studies, the number of authors increased by 0.8 per decade ( P < 0.001). Topic was a strong determinant of the number of authors; other independent factors included journal impact factor, multinational authorship, and (for randomized trials) article length and sample size. Trials from South Europe (+1.1 authors) and North America (+0.9) and nonrandomized studies from South Europe (+1.8) had more authors than studies from North Europe ( P < 0.001). For case reports, only geographic location and article length were significantly related with author numbers. The number of authors in articles of randomized and nonrandomized studies has increased over time, even after adjusting for the topic, size, and visibility of a study. The academic coinage of authorship may be suffering from inflation.

This paper reviews the court-released discovery documents obtained from litigation against Monsanto over its herbicide Roundup and through Freedom of Information Act requests (requests to regulatory agencies and public universities in the United States). We sought evidence of corporate malfeasance and undisclosed conflicts of interest with respect to issues of scientific integrity. The findings include evidence of ghostwriting, interference in journal publication, and undue influence of a federal regulatory agency.