Essentiality of Responsible Research Publication

Dear Editor,

I came across a recent Commentary in this journal titled “Uncompromising Scientific Integrity” by Zuniga and Duncombe. The authors reaffirmed that the Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care will continue to uphold the integrity of scientific inquiry in publishing research on HIV care. ¹ As a researcher, I fully support this commitment and echo this call to every health journal's editorial board and fellow researchers to be responsible for fulfilling their respective responsibilities in the realm of research. Thus, I aim to enumerate sample incidents that stemmed from not upholding integrity in scientific inquiry but reiterate important matters associated with responsible research publication.

A popular idiom says, “Better late than never.” It would be a disaster if inaccurate, unprecise, and unreliable data were published and then, for example, used as a basis for the discovery and manufacturing of new vaccines or drugs. We know in medical history some instances where clinical trials have gone wrong. This is not to conclude that they are solely a result of unreliable research, but in one way or another, research is significantly involved in such catastrophes. Let us take, for example, the clinical trial in France where a candidate drug was tested for neurological and psychiatric pathologies and resulted in the death of a person, and five people were hospitalized. ² Another incident happened in 2006, where six healthy volunteers in a clinical trial were injected with a “superagonist,” a drug meant to boost a type of T cell in the immune system, and soon all of them became violently ill. The volunteers vomited, collapsed, and passed out. ³ It is important to note that clinical trials are research studies that test a medical, surgical, or behavioral intervention in people. These trials are the primary way that researchers determine if a new form of treatment or prevention, such as a new drug, diet, or medical device, is safe and effective in people. Published journal articles supply information that helps scientists develop new hypotheses and provide a foundation for new scientific discoveries and inventions. Authors cite previously published papers to make a case for their conclusions based on previously documented scientific evidence and the latest information they have gathered. Thus, reliable and accurate research-based data are critical in executing any medical process.

Zuniga and Duncombe are right when they claim that scientific journals must serve as unwavering defenders of evidence-based knowledge. Authors, reviewers, and editorial boards must remain vigilant against any encroachments on the integrity of the peer-review and publication process. ¹ This claim is linked to the relevant issue of predatory journals. Responsible research publication stresses the avoidance of submission to predatory journals and observing thorough and critical considerations before acknowledging the legitimate ones. Predatory journals are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. These journals falsely claim to provide peer review, hide information about Article Processing Charges, misrepresent journal editorial board members, and commit other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. Some negative consequences can undermine the scientific conversation, which fakes the peer review process and may contain false, inaccurate, and misinformed data. ⁴ When this happens, the integrity of scientific research is compromised and may cause harm to public health.

Retracting or withdrawing a published research article is better than spreading inaccurate, imprecise, and unreliable data on a body of knowledge, which can eventually spread globally and negatively affect the scientific world. In legitimate journals, a retraction is a mechanism by which a published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that its results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. The paper may be defamatory, violate personal privacy, be subject to a court order, or pose a serious health risk to the general public. ⁵ With this, it is a top priority to withdraw its publication. Aside from retractions, another useful editorial mechanism to address concerns about the validity or integrity of published work is Expression of Concern (EoC). Given that EoCs can remain unresolved for extended periods, it is often considered best practice to assign a DOI and formally publish the EoC so that both the original article and the EoC can be properly cited. ⁶ In addition, whether through retraction or EoC, post-publication peer review (PPPR) plays a pivotal role in maintaining scientific integrity. ⁷ It is a type of peer review system where articles are published online and then subjected to peer review by the wider academic community after publication. Post-publication peer review is having a rapidly increasing impact on science. Rigorous post-publication assessment of papers is crucial for filtering and potentially integrating meritorious data into the scientific collective. ⁸ Moreover, PPPR is increasingly supported by Open Science practices, such as data sharing, open peer commentary, and preprint discussions. A reference to PPPR and its interplay with Open Science might provide helpful context for readers interested in long-term systemic improvements to research publishing.

Research is vital for humanity, especially in health, where life is handled carefully. As much as possible, if an error cannot be totally avoided, it should be minimized to the fullest for the patient's safety and to uphold scientific integrity. This is why reliable and responsible health publications are always a must to achieve this goal.