Integrity in research relies on honesty, transparency and respect for ethical standards at every stage of the scientific process – from study design to publication.
At the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress in Madrid, a new and refreshing discussion format was introduced: the fireside chat. These informal sessions created space for timely and sometimes overlooked topics that rarely make it onto the main stage. One that stood out was entitled ‘Science under Scrutiny – Emerging Ethical Challenges in Publishing’.
The session featured two high-profile figures in cardiovascular publishing: Prof Filippo Crea, editor-in-chief of the European Heart Journal, and Prof Massimo Piepoli, editor-in-chief of EHJ – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes and former editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. They were interviewed by Prof Bianca Rocca, professor of pharmacology, who set the stage and helped shape the fireside chat initiative.
In her introduction, Prof Rocca recalled a striking headline from the Wall Street Journal in August this year: ‘Scientific journals can’t keep up with flood of fake papers’.1 The article warned of a growing tide of fraudulent manuscripts overwhelming editorial systems and evading detection. She also cited Nature’s 2024 analysis, which showed how retracted studies continue to influence the scientific record as they are still frequently cited.2
Prof Rocca highlighted the work of Dr Anna Abalkina, a research fellow at the Free University of Berlin, who has devoted her career to investigating scientific corruption, including paper mills and hijacked journals. Named by Nature as one of the 10 people who shaped science in 2024, she has produced research that underscores the seriousness of these challenges.3
The Council of Science Editors first issued its Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publication in 2006. Since 2018, this document has been updated on a rolling basis to reflect new information and best practices; the 2025 version is now available.4 These recommendations emphasise editors’ responsibilities not only to authors and reviewers but also to readers, the broader scientific community and, ultimately, the public.
Although editors must interact with journal owners and publishers, their independence remains essential. Editorial freedom – involving both authority and autonomy – is a cornerstone of scientific integrity. In this sense, editors act as guardians of trust.
The reliability of research can be undermined by both deliberate misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, image manipulation or plagiarism, and by unintentional errors, including poor oversight or limited technical expertise.
The most damaging cases involve misconduct, which erodes trust and often comes to light through failed replication attempts, duplicate publications, rising retraction rates and calls for further withdrawals.5,6 Therefore, editors-in-chief play a critical role in safeguarding the credibility of scientific journals.
The fireside chat explored several pressing questions:
- What are the greatest ethical challenges facing high-impact journals today?
- How can data integrity, transparency and data-set access be safeguarded, particularly in industry-funded trials?
- How can editorial independence be maintained when commercial interests are involved?
- How can journals guard against selective reporting, bias and challenges in reproducibility, especially with real-world data?
- Since most published research still originates from high-income countries, how can journals promote inclusivity without compromising quality standards?
- How are evolving publisher policies, such as those of Oxford University Press, shaping editorial practice?
- What is the single most important reform in publishing ethics that should be achieved in the next 5 years?
Artificial intelligence (AI) was another central topic, discussed in terms of both its potential applications and its ethical risks. The possible use of AI in peer review was debated, with the speakers weighing efficiency gains against concerns about bias, transparency and misuse in generating fraudulent papers.
Audience participation was strong, particularly from early-career researchers. Many young cardiologists expressed concern about the growing loss of credibility in science, questioning whether they should approach their careers differently from previous generations and how best to navigate information that may not always be reliable.
Questions also centred on the pressures of the ‘publish or perish’ culture, the mechanics of the retraction process and the challenges of handling submissions from authors with a history of retracted work.
From my perspective, the fireside chats deserve a wider audience – ideally in a slightly larger (though still intimate) setting, as many participants were left standing at the back.
Most importantly, discussions on research ethics and integrity must continue.
As Prof Rocca concluded: “Science is not only about discovery but also about trust – trust in the process, in fair peer review and in the integrity of the published record. That trust depends on all of us: editors, reviewers, authors and institutions.”