CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: publication misconduct in research

  • Elsevier’s Research Integrity Screening Process

    Elsevier screens research submissions for integrity issues through a layered pipeline: automated tools such as Check Integrity and Crossref Similarity Check flag plagiarism, duplicate submissions and image anomalies at intake, specialist Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics (RIPE) analysts investigate confirmed concerns, and outcomes range from correction through expression of concern to full retraction, following guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

    Research integrity screening is the set of technical checks and human review stages a publisher applies to a manuscript, before and after publication, to detect fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed image manipulation and paper-mill activity. At Elsevier, that pipeline runs continuously from the moment a manuscript is submitted to the point, if necessary, of retraction.

    How Elsevier’s research-integrity pipeline works, from submission to retraction

    Elsevier operates one of the largest editorial screening operations in scholarly publishing. In 2025, the publisher received 4.2 million manuscript submissions across roughly 3,000 journals and published 795,000 after validation and peer review, according to Elsevier’s own account of its editorial process. Elsevier states that its published output accounts for over 18% of global research output and 29% of citations — a scale that shapes why it has invested heavily in both automated screening and dedicated integrity staff rather than relying on peer review alone.

    The pipeline runs across four broad stages, each with a different primary tool or team responsible for catching a different class of problem.

    Stage Primary tool or team Typical trigger
    Submission intake Check Integrity screening tool; Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) Text overlap, duplicate manuscript, unauthorised authorship change
    Peer review Editors, external reviewers, RIPE analysts Implausible data, reviewer-flagged inconsistency, suspicious image reuse
    Post-publication monitoring Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics (RIPE) team Reader or whistleblower reports, cross-journal pattern analysis
    Enforcement Editors-in-chief, following COPE-guided process Confirmed fabrication, falsification or plagiarism

    What does Elsevier screen for at the point of submission?

    Every manuscript submitted to an Elsevier journal is routed through automated checks before an editor sees it. Check Integrity, Elsevier’s proprietary screening tool, had been expanded across more than 2,000 journals as of March 2026, according to trade press coverage in Research Information. The tool automatically reviews submissions for red flags — including unauthorised authorship changes, undisclosed conflicts of interest and signs of duplicate or template-like submission — and routes anything flagged to specialist integrity analysts, freeing editors to focus on scientific merit.

    Plagiarism screening runs in parallel through Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, which compares submitted text against a large index of published articles and web content. There is no fixed similarity percentage that automatically triggers rejection; editors interpret each report to distinguish appropriate citation from genuine textual misconduct.

    Paper-mill detection layers on top of these checks. Integrity analysts look for patterns that recur across industrialised fraud, including:

    • Formulaic, template-like titles or methods sections
    • Unusual or inconsistent author affiliations and contact details
    • Data or experimental descriptions that do not match the stated methodology
    • Systematic image reuse across ostensibly unrelated papers
    • Irregular peer-review patterns, such as reviewer suggestions tied to the same small pool of contacts

    How does Elsevier detect image manipulation and data-integrity problems?

    Image screening combines editorial guidelines with a mix of manual and software-assisted checks. Elsevier’s policy permits minor adjustments to brightness, contrast or colour balance only where they do not obscure or eliminate information present in the original image; the use of generative AI to create or alter a figure is prohibited outright. Where manipulation is suspected, editors can apply forensic image-analysis tools of the kind recommended by the US Office of Research Integrity, and will typically request the original, unprocessed image files directly from the authors.

    Elsevier has also published on the scale of automated flagging behind these checks. At the 8th World Conference on Research Integrity in 2024, Elsevier data scientist Yuri Kashnitsky presented on large-scale flagging of integrity misconduct across the publisher’s portfolio, noting that all system-generated findings are manually checked and confirmed by investigators before any corrective action is suggested to editors — underscoring that software narrows the search space, but a human analyst still makes the determination.

    Who investigates confirmed misconduct, and what enforcement follows?

    Once a concern is substantiated, Elsevier’s in-house Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics (RIPE) team leads the investigation, working with journal editors and, where warranted, the authors’ institutions. Elsevier states that it follows retraction guidelines developed by COPE, and confirmed problems resolve into one of three outcomes: a correction or erratum for errors that do not undermine the paper’s conclusions, an expression of concern where the investigation is inconclusive but doubts remain, or a retraction where the findings are no longer considered reliable.

    A recent case shows this enforcement ladder operating at scale. In a statement updated in May 2026, Elsevier disclosed that a comprehensive, multi-year audit of the journal Heliyon — using Check Integrity screening combined with manual review by RIPE analysts — had produced approximately 1,100 corrections to the scientific record, affecting around 3% of everything the journal had published across 12 years. Those 1,100 actions spanned corrections, expressions of concern and retractions; impacted authors were notified and given the chance to respond before editors made a final determination. Following the audit, Web of Science removed an indexing hold it had placed on Heliyon, and Elsevier said it was applying lessons from the case to workflows across its wider journal portfolio.

    Common questions about Elsevier’s integrity screening

    Does Elsevier use iThenticate for plagiarism screening?

    Yes. Elsevier’s journals route submitted manuscripts through Crossref Similarity Check, which is powered by iThenticate, comparing text against a large index of published articles and web content. Editors, not the software alone, judge whether flagged overlap reflects proper citation or genuine plagiarism before any editorial decision is made.

    Who investigates allegations of research misconduct at Elsevier?

    Elsevier’s in-house Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics (RIPE) team investigates confirmed concerns, working alongside journal editors and, where relevant, the authors’ institutions. Investigations follow COPE guidelines and typically involve requesting raw underlying data before any corrective action is taken.

    What is considered the most serious form of research misconduct?

    Fabrication and falsification of data are generally treated as the most serious forms of misconduct, alongside plagiarism, because they directly corrupt the reliability of the published record. Elsevier’s policies place these above lesser breaches such as citation gaming or unresolved authorship disputes.

    What happens after a research-integrity investigation confirms a problem?

    Confirmed issues lead to one of three outcomes: a correction for errors that do not undermine the findings, an expression of concern where evidence is inconclusive, or a retraction where the results are no longer considered reliable. All three are published and linked to the original article, per COPE guidance.

    What this means for institutions, authors and integrity offices

    For research administrators, the Heliyon case is a reminder that publisher-side screening is a complement to institutional processes, not a substitute for them. When a journal’s RIPE team contacts an institution about a flagged submission or published paper, that request typically triggers — and depends on — the institution’s own research-integrity office and record-keeping, an area covered in more detail in CASRAI’s research administration resources and its wider research-integrity dictionary entries. Authors, in turn, should expect to be asked for raw, unprocessed data or images at any stage, including years after publication, and should retain those records accordingly.

    Elsevier is not acting alone: it collaborates with other publishers through the STM Integrity Hub to detect duplicate submissions across the wider industry, reflecting a broader shift toward cross-publisher, not just single-journal, integrity infrastructure. As automated screening tools mature, the balance is likely to keep shifting toward earlier detection at submission — but the Heliyon audit shows that human RIPE analysts, not algorithms, remain the ones who make the final call on correction, expression of concern or retraction.

  • Publication Misconduct in Research: The Post-Publication Process

    Publication misconduct in research discovered after a paper is already public triggers a defined post-publication pipeline: a reader or institution files a complaint, the journal opens a formal investigation guided by COPE, an expression of concern may be issued while it runs, and a retraction or correction follows if misconduct is confirmed.

    Publication misconduct is unethical conduct in the publishing process itself — fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, or fraudulent (ghost, guest or gift) authorship — as distinct from poor research design or an honest error in the underlying study. Once a flawed paper has already been indexed, cited and built upon, the mechanics of fixing the record are entirely different from catching the same problem at peer review. This article sets out what actually happens once that process starts, who runs it, and how the outcome gets communicated to readers and indexers.

    What counts as publication misconduct once a paper is already public?

    Publication misconduct covers conduct in the writing and submission of a paper, not the underlying experiment: fabrication (inventing data), falsification (manipulating images, figures or results), plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, and fraudulent authorship such as ghost, guest or gift authorship. The Royal Society’s publishing ethics policy defines research misconduct as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” — and explicitly excludes “honest error or differences of opinion” from that definition.

    That exclusion matters at the post-publication stage. An editor’s first job on receiving a complaint is not to assume guilt but to classify the report: is this a correctable mistake, an authorship dispute, or a potential integrity breach that needs a formal case? Only the third category enters the investigation pipeline described below.

    What triggers a post-publication review?

    Post-publication scrutiny rarely originates with the journal itself. It is most often triggered externally, then formalised internally once a case is opened.

    • Reader or third-party complaints — direct emails to the editor, or public flags on post-publication review platforms such as PubPeer.
    • Institutional referral — a university research integrity office notifies the journal after its own internal inquiry.
    • Journal screening tools — image-manipulation and paper-mill detection software run against submitted or already-published figures.
    • Whistleblowers — co-authors, former colleagues or lab members raising concerns directly.
    • Funder or sponsor notice — a grant body flags a discrepancy found during its own audit.

    Under the ICMJE Recommendations, editors who receive “convincing evidence” of misconduct have a duty to pursue the matter — including by contacting the authors’ institution — rather than simply declining to act on an anonymous tip.

    How does the editorial investigation actually run?

    Once a case is opened, the journal follows a sequence set out in COPE’s guidance rather than improvising case by case. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines (2019) and its accompanying flowcharts are the reference most editors use to decide what to do next, and in what order.

    1. Initial screening — the editor checks whether the complaint is plausible and falls within the journal’s remit.
    2. Author response — the corresponding author is asked to explain, and usually to supply raw data, original images or lab records.
    3. Institutional referral — if the explanation is unsatisfactory or the allegation is serious, the editor notifies the authors’ institution, which runs its own inquiry under its research integrity policy; the journal does not adjudicate misconduct itself.
    4. Interim notice — while the inquiry is unresolved, the journal may publish an editorial expression of concern attached to the paper.
    5. Final notice — depending on the outcome, the journal publishes a correction, a retraction, or lifts the expression of concern with no further action.

    This sequencing is the core distinction between research-stage and publication-stage misconduct handling: at the research stage, a funder or institution can simply stop a study; at the publication stage, the journal must communicate every step publicly, because the paper is already part of the citable literature.

    Retraction, correction, or expression of concern — what is the difference?

    These three notice types are not interchangeable, and mixing them up is one of the most common errors in coverage of publication misconduct. Each has a distinct trigger, a distinct effect on the paper’s citability, and a distinct authority that can issue it.

    Notice type When it is issued Effect on the paper Who can issue it
    Correction / erratum / corrigendum An error is confirmed but conclusions still hold Paper stands; correction is linked to it Editor, with author agreement
    Editorial expression of concern Investigation is open but unresolved Paper stands but is flagged as unreliable pending outcome Editor, independently of authors
    Retraction Misconduct or unreliable findings confirmed Paper is marked “RETRACTED” but remains accessible for transparency Editor, authors, or institution

    A retracted paper is not deleted. Standard practice, reflected in NISO RP-45-2022, Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC), requires the original text to remain online with a clear, permanent watermark and a linked retraction notice explaining the reason — so the scientific record stays transparent rather than simply erased. Since 2023, Crossref has hosted the freely available Retraction Watch Database, giving publishers, institutions and reference managers a shared, machine-readable source of retraction metadata rather than relying on scattered publisher notices alone.

    Common questions about post-publication misconduct

    What is the difference between a retraction, a correction, and an expression of concern?

    A correction fixes a confirmed error while the paper’s conclusions stand. An expression of concern flags an unresolved investigation without prejudging guilt. A retraction is issued once misconduct or unreliable findings are confirmed, permanently marking the paper as withdrawn from the reliable literature while keeping it accessible.

    What triggers a post-publication misconduct investigation?

    Investigations are usually triggered by a reader complaint, a post-publication review platform flag, an institutional referral, a whistleblower report, or automated screening for image manipulation or paper-mill patterns. Under the ICMJE Recommendations, editors receiving credible evidence have a duty to pursue it rather than dismiss it.

    Does a retracted paper disappear from the internet?

    No. Under NISO’s CREC recommended practice, retracted articles must remain accessible with a permanent watermark and a linked retraction notice. Removal is reserved for rare cases involving legal risk, such as defamation or serious safety hazards, not ordinary misconduct findings.

    Who decides whether a published paper is retracted?

    The journal editor makes the final call, but the decision is informed by the authors’ institution, which runs the substantive misconduct inquiry. COPE’s Retraction Guidelines position the journal as the notice-issuing authority and the institution as the fact-finding authority — the two roles are kept deliberately separate.

    What does this mean for institutions and authors?

    For research administrators, a post-publication complaint is not a journal-only event. Institutions are expected to run a parallel inquiry, respond to editor requests for data within a defined timeframe, and — if misconduct is confirmed — cooperate on the retraction notice’s wording under COPE guidance. Authors named on a retracted paper should expect it to be discoverable through Crossref’s Retraction Watch Database and CrossMark update badges wherever it is cited or indexed, regardless of original host.

    Contributor-role clarity also matters here: disputes over who is accountable for which part of a paper are easier to resolve when contributions were recorded precisely at submission. CASRAI’s authorship resources and research administration guidance cover structuring that accountability before a dispute reaches an editor’s desk.

    Where the retraction pipeline is heading

    Two shifts are changing post-publication misconduct handling. First, machine-readable retraction metadata — now centralised at Crossref rather than scattered across publisher sites — propagates a retraction to citation databases and discovery layers automatically, closing a gap that once left retracted papers silently cited for years. Second, paper-mill detection is shifting discovery earlier, toward pre-publication screening — but the CREC-based post-publication pipeline remains the backstop for everything that gets through regardless. The mark of a well-functioning system is not the absence of retractions; it is a transparent, standardised trail from complaint to notice that any reader can follow.