Intercepting Misconduct: Seven Practical Tips for Editors

Victoria Merriman explains how publishers can support editorial board members in safeguarding the scholarly record

Upholding high standards in academic research is a collective effort. Everyone involved in scholarly publishing is responsible for protecting the scholarly record and trust in science.

From researchers, peer reviewers to publishers and production managers. But one group is perhaps most important, as the custodians of the scholarly record when it comes to training and consultation to intercept research misconduct. Involving editorial board members of scientific journals is crucial as editors play a vital role in preserving research integrity. In 2024, 8.5 % of manuscripts submitted to IOP Publishing (IOPP) were rejected before peer review due to ethical concerns.

A great source of information and support for editors is the STM Integrity Hub. It provides information about duplicate submissions, papermills, problematic references and integrates with many submissions systems to automatically perform those checks and flag concerns to research staff. Many submissions systems are now also either developing their own functionality or partnering with others to detect peer review manipulation.

Following updates on emerging threats and policy shifts, such as the evolving role of AI in scientific research, and sharing these developments with board members and the wider editorial team is important to stay abreast of the fast-moving developments.  Insightful news outlets to follow include RetractionWatch, Journalology and The Scholarly Kitchen, and newsletters of ALPSP, STM, NISO and COPE – and, of course, Research Information!

Developing a vetting checklist for guest editors and prospective editorial board members helps to mitigate the risk of unintentionally bringing unethical actors into decision-making roles. By checking sources like PubPeer and Retraction Watch records in your own submission system, you can be reassured that you’re defending the integrity of these key roles. It is also important to clearly outline expectations and potential consequences of misconduct in your ethical policy. 

Investigating and trying out AI-driven tools such as Peer Review AI Assistant, CrossRef’s Similarity Check, ImageTwin and Signals to detect duplication and research integrity issues is also recommended. However, these tools need to be used with close oversight of the peer review process. IOPP manages research integrity and peer review internally with professional editors, with a dedicated research integrity team following the principles set out by COPE guidelines in investigations. This proximity helps to keep a close eye on the quality of submitted papers.

And finally, there needs to be a shift in how retractions are perceived. Retractions are an indicator of rigorous integrity efforts—correcting the literature strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates the hard work that has been done in support of research integrity. Of course, the goal has to be to find problems or unintentional research errors before publication, but we must not vilify organisations for correcting the scientific record. By arming editors with the right tools and support they can be a crucial line of defence in intercepting research misconduct and upholding high standards in scientific research.

Victoria Merriman is Editor Engagement Manager at IOP Publishing

Do you want to read more content like this? SUBSCRIBE to the Research Information Newsline!