AimTo analyze mistakes and misconduct in multidisciplinary and specialized biomedical journals. MethodsWe conducted searches through PubMed to retrieve errata, duplicate, and retracted publications (as of . To analyze publication activity and citation profiles of countries, multidisciplinary, and specialized biomedical journals, we referred to the latest data from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. Total number of indexed articles and values of the h-index of the fifty most productive countries and multidisciplinary journals were recorded and linked to the number of duplicate and retracted publications in PubMed.Results Our analysis found 2597 correction items. A striking increase in the number of corrections appeared in 2013, which is mainly due to 871 (85.3%) corrections from PLOS One. The number of duplicate publications was 1086. Articles frequently published in duplicate were reviews (15.6%), original studies (12.6%), and case reports (7.6%), whereas top three retracted articles were original studies (10.1%), randomized trials (8.8%), and reviews (7%). A strong association existed between the total number of publications across countries and duplicate (r s = 0.86, P < 0.001) and retracted items (r s = 0.812, P < 0.001). A similar trend was found between country-based h-index values and duplicate and retracted publications. ConclusionThe study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information. Digitization and open access confound the staggering increase in correction notices and retractions.

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

Unique identifiers of researchers and authors can help all stakeholders of scientific communications improve their workflows. There have been several attempts to establish professional networks of scholars and list their scholarly achievements on digital platforms. Some of these platforms such as Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge and PubMed are searched to pick relevant peer reviewers, assess authors' publication history or choose suitable candidates for research and academic projects. However, each of these hubs has its specific applications, limiting the universal use for permanent tagging of researcher profiles. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative, launched in 2012, is aimed at registering scholarly contributors and averting the persistent ambiguity of recorded author names. The ORCID registry is growing fast and integrating with other ID-generating platforms, thereby increasing the functionality of the integrated systems. ORCID identifiers are increasingly used for selecting peer reviewers and acknowledging various scholarly contributions (e.g., published articles, reviewer comments, conference presentations). The initiative offers unique opportunities for transparent disclosures of author contributions and competing interests and improving ethical standards of research, editing, and publishing.