Correcting the scientific record– A broken system?

Mark J. Bolland*, Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Andrew a. Klein

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)


The current system for assessing and publicly notifying concerns about publication integrity is slow, inefficient, inconsistent, inadequate, and opaque. Readers are, therefore, left unaware of potential issues about publications or are given inadequate information to assess publication integrity. We propose a new process for dealing with publication integrity involving the establishment of independent panel(s) that assess publication integrity and transparently report the outcomes of those assessments, independent of the assessment of any misconduct.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)265-279
Number of pages15
JournalAccountability in Research
Issue number5
Early online date8 Dec 2020
Publication statusPublished - 4 Jul 2021

Bibliographical note

The authors received no specific funding for this work. MB is the recipient of an HRC Clinical Practitioner Fellowship. The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors are independent of the HRC. The HRC had no role in study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the article, or the decision to submit it for publication.


  • expression of concern
  • Publication integrity
  • retraction


Dive into the research topics of 'Correcting the scientific record– A broken system?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this