ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 'Correcting the record on "Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study" Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026;11:49.' Reply.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.