Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33853690›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2021

Cooperation & Liaison between Universities & Editors (CLUE): recommendations on best practice.

Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert, CLUE Working Group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  2. Maintaining the Integrity of the Biomedical Research Record Through Timely, Appropriate Corrective Action.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Are we "CLUE" less?Contemporary clinical dentistry
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth WagerSideview, 19 Station Road, Princes Risborough, HP27 9DE, UK. liz@ewager.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4202-7813
Sabine KleinertThe Lancet, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7826-1188
CLUE Working Group
University of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic.

methodsThese recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication.

resultsThe main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers.

conclusionsVarious difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Indexed as

FabricationFalsificationJournalsMisconductPeer reviewPlagiarismResearch institutionsResearch integrityResearch reporting

Identifiers

PMID33853690
PMCPMC8048029
OpenAlexW3156608431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.