ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2025
Publication integrity: what is it, why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?
Review in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation to prevent fractures and falls: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Linguistic, Orthographic, and Typographical Errors in Science (LOTS): A Growing Threat to Academic Integrity.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Implementing Reproducible Fisheries Research: A Decade of Experience With the Kahawai Reporting System.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2026Article
- Translational Lifestyle Medicine Approaches to Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trustworthy literature is an essential part of knowledge, evidence-based information, and science. However, publications can contain mistakes or have results from unreliable research, which may compromise their integrity. In this review, we discuss publication integrity, with a focus on our field of biomedicine, and how it could be improved. In our experience, compromised publication integrity is frequently poorly handled, and we, and others, have reported that responses to publication integrity concerns can be inefficient, inconsistent, slow, opaque, and incomplete. Checklists and tools are now available to assist in the assessment of publication integrity, but systemic changes are needed. However, this requires many of the key parties involved (journals, publishers, institutions, academic societies, and regulators) to acknowledge and engage with the problem. There is little evidence of a willingness to do this. We conclude that it has been recognised for many years that the system for dealing with publication integrity is broken, but currently, there appears little interest in trying to improve it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.