Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42381096›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026

Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study.

Evan D Kharasch, Michael M Todd, Jean-Francois Pittet, William L Lanier

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Evan D KharaschDepartment of Anesthesiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Box 3094, Duke South 4315C, 10 Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. evan.kharasch@duke.edu.
Michael M ToddDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jean-Francois PittetDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA.
William L LanierDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conflict-of-interestEthics

Identifiers

PMID42381096
PMCPMC13321656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.