The new journal itself is devoted to metascience, sometimes called metaresearch or "research on research," a field that treats the scholarly enterprise itself as an object of study. Rather than investigating questions within a particular discipline, metascientists examine how research is conducted, reviewed, published, communicated, and used, with the aim of raising the quality and efficiency of science and strengthening the transparency and integrity of the scholarly publishing ecosystem. The field has gained considerable traction over the past decade, with high-profile replication projects, systematic examinations of statistical practice, and studies of peer review reliability demonstrating that the processes underpinning published knowledge can themselves be measured, audited, and improved. JMIR Metascience and Research Integrity frames its mission around ethical challenges, best practices, and evidence-based research standards, positioning the new section on misinformation as a natural extension of that agenda: if metascience can diagnose weaknesses in research practice, it can equally be applied to the corruption of the communication channels through which research travels.

The rationale for the section rests on a growing concern: the integrity of the scientific record depends not only on rigorous research practices but also on the trustworthiness of the channels through which knowledge is communicated and disseminated. According to the announcement, misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in scholarly publishing now represent a growing threat to the credibility of science. The publisher draws a deliberate distinction between these phenomena and the more familiar category of public health misinformation, which typically circulates among lay audiences. Scholarly misinformation, in this framing, arises from within the academic ecosystem itself, generated through compromised peer review, manipulated data, misleading abstracts, predatory publishing, citation manipulation, paper mills, and the irresponsible or outright fraudulent use of artificial intelligence tools across the research life cycle. The distinction matters because scholarly misinformation can carry the implicit imprimatur of peer review and institutional affiliation, lending it an authority that public misinformation lacks and making it harder for readers—including experienced clinicians and researchers—to detect.

The consequences, the announcement warns, extend well beyond academic debates. Erosion of public trust in science is one downstream effect, but the risks are more concrete: misleading content in the literature could inform harmful real-world decisions in clinical practice or health policy. A clinician who acts on a fabricated or manipulated study, or a policy maker who cites a compromised systematic review, may cause direct harm to patients or populations. This clinical and policy dimension is especially salient for JMIR Publications, whose portfolio is anchored by digital health research, including the well-known Journal of Medical Internet Research. In fields where published findings are quickly translated into apps, clinical protocols, telehealth interventions, and guideline recommendations, the lag between publication of a flawed or fabricated paper and its practical application can be vanishingly short, magnifying the stakes of every integrity failure.

The publisher also emphasizes how changes in the speed and scale of scholarly production have amplified these vulnerabilities. Evolving publishing models, such as preprints and open peer review, together with modern dissemination tools and culture—including social media and journalistic media—may serve as new avenues for an influx of unvalidated AI-generated material. The result, according to the call, is an increased risk of accelerating the spread of information that has not been adequately vetted. Even when such content is harmless, its rapid circulation is problematic; when it is intentionally misleading, it shades into disinformation and malinformation. The concern reflects broader anxieties in the publishing world, where generative tools have made it cheaper and faster than ever to produce fluent, plausible-sounding manuscripts at industrial scale, straining the capacity of editors and volunteer reviewers to distinguish legitimate submissions from manufactured ones. At the same time, the announcement notes a countervailing trend: the scholarly publishing community is actively developing governance models, detection tools, educational frameworks, and policy interventions to counter these threats, and it is precisely this emerging body of work that the new section hopes to capture.

The call for papers outlines a broad set of topics that prospective authors might address. One cluster focuses on mechanisms: how inaccurate or misleading content enters and persists in the scientific literature in the first place. Understanding these pathways—whether through fraudulent manuscripts produced by commercial paper mills, peer review rings, image and data manipulation, or abstracts that overstate findings—underpins any serious effort at mitigation. Paper mills in particular have moved to the forefront of publishing-sector concern in recent years, with major publishers retracting thousands of articles linked to coordinated manuscript production operations, and with industry bodies convening cross-publisher working groups to share intelligence on suspicious submissions. The announcement treats this mechanistic understanding as a first-order research question, not merely background for policy discussion, implying that empirical studies of how corruption operates are as welcome as proposals for stopping it.

A second cluster concerns response and remediation. The journal invites work on the accurate detection, investigation, correction, and retraction of misinformation in published literature, including through postpublication review and other existing or novel policies and approaches. This encompasses some of the most contested terrain in contemporary publishing: the slow pace of retractions, the reluctance of journals to correct high-profile papers, the burden placed on volunteer sleuths who flag suspicious work, and the design of institutional processes that can investigate concerns fairly and efficiently. The explicit inclusion of "novel" approaches suggests openness to proposals for new infrastructures, not just evaluations of current practice—potentially encompassing automated screening tools, standardized investigation protocols, or rethinking how responsibility for postpublication correction is distributed among journals, institutions, and independent watchdogs.

The announcement also directs attention to scholarly content that falls outside formal peer review. Preprints have become an increasingly prominent part of the publishing landscape, particularly since their rapid adoption during public health emergencies, and the call specifically solicits work on misinformation in non–peer-reviewed scholarly content and its implications for public understanding of science. Because preprints are often indexed, covered by journalists, and shared widely on social media before any expert vetting occurs, they occupy a contested middle ground: valuable for speed and openness, but vulnerable to the amplification of claims that later prove wrong or were never properly qualified. Relatedly, the call invites examination of publishing practices themselves—predatory publishing, research assessment incentives, and other system and industry influences—as vectors for misinformation, recognizing that the pressures of "publish or perish" and metrics-driven evaluation can create demand for fraudulent or low-quality output. Studies linking assessment reform, such as moves away from journal-based metrics toward narrative CVs and research quality frameworks, could find a natural home here.

Governance and infrastructure form a third thematic pillar. The journal seeks submissions on policy and infrastructure-based solutions to mitigate misinformation in scholarly publishing, including the roles of publishers, editors, funders, and institutions. This framing acknowledges that no single actor controls the publishing ecosystem: funders shape research incentives, institutions oversee researchers, editors and publishers control venues and review processes, and infrastructure providers underpin the databases and platforms through which papers circulate. Effective responses, the call implies, will require coordinated action across these stakeholders rather than isolated interventions—an approach consistent with recent industry efforts to coordinate responses to paper mills and peer review manipulation across competing publishers who might otherwise have little incentive to share sensitive information.

The call additionally reaches beyond the present system toward speculative and evaluative futures. It welcomes well-argued, evidence-based thought pieces that imagine a future scholarly publishing ecosystem capable of mitigating misinformation in the published literature. And it broadens the lens beyond the scholarly record itself, inviting research on the impact of social media, science communication, and the amplification of misleading scientific claims beyond academia. Notably, the announcement highlights the potential impact of zero-click search—search interfaces that answer queries directly on results pages—on access to scientific material, an example of how changes in information infrastructure can alter how, and how accurately, the public encounters science. As search behavior shifts away from clicking through to original sources, the contextual cues that help readers evaluate a claim's provenance—journal identity, study limitations, corrections—may be stripped away, a dynamic the section appears eager to see studied empirically.

In terms of submission formats, the journal is casting a wide net. Original research, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, policy analyses, balanced viewpoints, research letters, and tutorials are all welcome. The publisher states particular interest in work that proposes, evaluates, or critically examines solutions and mitigation strategies developed by stakeholders across the publishing ecosystem, signaling that the section is intended to be solution-oriented rather than purely diagnostic. This orientation toward evidence-based remedies distinguishes the call from more purely aspirational integrity statements, and suggests the editors want submissions that test interventions rather than merely describe problems. Full details of the call for papers are available on the journal's website.

JMIR Publications, headquartered at 130 Queens Quay East in Toronto, describes itself as a leading open access publisher of digital health research and a champion of open science, with a focus on author advocacy and research amplification. It positions itself as a technology organization with publishing at its core, offering tools and resources that support researchers throughout the dissemination process. Its portfolio spans a range of peer-reviewed journals beyond JMIR Metascience and Research Integrity, and it maintains a presence on platforms including X, LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram. Media inquiries can be directed to the publisher's communications team.

The launch of this section reflects a broader moment in scholarly publishing, in which concerns about paper mills, manipulated peer review, and AI-generated text have moved from the margins to the center of discussions about research integrity. Publishers, funders, and researcher communities have increasingly treated these issues not as isolated scandals but as systemic challenges requiring systemic evidence—a shift that metascience, with its emphasis on empirical study of the research enterprise, is well positioned to serve.

As academia faces challenges like data fabrication and plagiarism, educational institutions are compelled to integrate comprehensive ethics training into their curricula. Bhattacharyya’s work emphasizes the need for developing assignments that not only highlight ethical issues but also engage students in critical discussions. The customization of assignments according to specific disciplines is underscored as vital; what qualifies as ethical conduct in one field can differ significantly in another. This nuanced approach prepares students for the kind of ethical dilemmas they will likely encounter in their academic and professional lives.

Engaging students through these assignments requires creativity on the part of educators. Traditional lecture formats may not suffice in instilling a robust understanding of research ethics. Bhattacharyya proposes incorporating case studies, role-playing scenarios, and even simulations, which can foster a deep-seated appreciation for ethical standards. By immersing students in real-world dilemmas, educators can enhance their critical thinking abilities, equipping them to navigate the murky waters of ethical compliance in their future careers.

The implications of ethical misconduct are profound, impacting not only individual researchers but also entire institutions. When a scholar commits a breach of ethics, it can tarnish the reputation of their university and hinder the public’s trust in scientific findings. The importance of instilling ethical rigor is amplified in today’s era, where scientific advancements are interconnected with societal welfare. It is imperative that doctoral candidates emerge from their programs not only as competent researchers but as responsible stewards of knowledge.

One of the most compelling arguments in favor of Bhattacharyya’s recommendations is the potential for developing a culture of accountability within academic institutions. When research ethics are prioritized, the entire community benefits. This culture encourages long-term adherence to ethical standards, ensuring that young scholars are prepared to address ethical challenges head-on. Furthermore, an increased focus on ethics can aid in democratizing access to research outputs, as researchers will be more likely to engage with open-access publishing practices when aware of the ethical concerns tied to proprietary research.

Research ethics extend beyond mere compliance; they encompass the values of honesty, integrity, and respect for all participants involved in the research process. The ethical treatment of human subjects, animals, and the environment must form the bedrock of research activities. Bhattacharyya’s framework for ethics assignments seeks to cultivate these values holistically, helping students internalize the importance of ethical conduct at every stage of the research process. By developing assignments that focus on real-world implications, students grasp the weight of their responsibilities.

With society’s expectations of researchers evolving, the traditional definitions of research ethics are also shifting. The digital age presents unique challenges, from the manipulation of data in the age of big data to the ethical implications of artificial intelligence in research methodologies. Bhattacharyya’s proposals take into account the contemporary landscape, ensuring that doctoral programs remain relevant and effective in addressing these modern dilemmas. This adaptability is crucial in preparing future researchers for a world where ethical considerations are intricately connected to technological advancement and societal impact.

Continuous dialogue around research ethics is essential, fostering an environment where students feel empowered to discuss their concerns openly. Bhattacharyya emphasizes the importance of mentorship in this context, encouraging experienced researchers to lead by example. By offering guidance and support, mentors can help junior scholars navigate the complexities of ethical dilemmas. Regular seminars and workshops can serve as platforms for this ongoing conversation, reinforcing the significance of ethics throughout a researcher’s career path.

Moreover, as institutions strive to cultivate ethical researchers, they must also evaluate the existing mechanisms supporting ethical research. Bhattacharyya calls for the establishment of clear policies and guidelines that delineate ethical conduct. Transparency in these policies can alleviate ambiguities surrounding ethical breaches and ensure that students understand the consequences of misconduct. As ethical compliance becomes a more prominent focus, institutions will likely find that education around these issues contributes to a healthier academic climate overall.

As we look towards the future, the role of research and publication ethics will undoubtedly continue to expand. The emphasis on ethical scholarship not only enhances individual careers but also fortifies the entire research enterprise. Bhattacharyya’s analysis presents an opportunity for institutions to reflect on their responsibilities in educating the next wave of scholars. By investing in ethics training, educators can cultivate a generation of researchers committed to integrity and excellence.

Looking ahead, the implications of Bhattacharyya’s research extend beyond the initial implementation of assignments. It opens up a broader conversation about the integration of ethics across the entire academic experience. Institutions that prioritize ethical scholarship will undoubtedly foster a generation of leaders capable of addressing future ethical challenges with confidence and integrity. The commitment to ethical inquiry will serve as the foundation upon which the future of academia will be built, ensuring that research remains a tool for innovation and societal betterment.

In conclusion, the need for effective research and publication ethics training for doctoral students cannot be understated. Bhattacharyya’s groundbreaking work highlights the pathways forward for higher education institutes to shape responsible, ethical researchers. As we continue to navigate a complex and rapidly changing academic landscape, the emphasis on ethical training will be instrumental in fostering a culture of integrity in research that transcends disciplinary boundaries. By investing in these critical educational endeavors, we can ensure that the researchers of tomorrow are equipped to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct, ultimately benefiting society as a whole.

Subject of Research: Research and publication ethics in doctoral education

Article Title: Designing research and publication ethics assignments for doctoral students in higher education institutes

Article References:

Bhattacharyya, S. Designing research and publication ethics assignments for doctoral students in higher education institutes.
Discov Educ 4, 425 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00884-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: Research ethics, doctoral education, publication ethics, academia, integrity, ethical training, higher education

As these European cities prepare for this vibrant venture, Kiel stands out as a leader in promoting trust in research, particularly in the Baltic Sea region. Under the stewardship of Mayor Dr. Ulf Kämpfer, Kiel has formed a robust collaboration with cities such as Brest and Split to showcase the strength of Europe’s innovation ecosystems. The dual approach to reinforcing trust in science while maximizing its accessibility reflects a profound understanding of the current societal climate, where misinformation can easily undermine public confidence in research findings. Initiatives like "Science Comes to Town" aim to transform this narrative by democratizing research outcomes, allowing citizens to engage directly with scientific advancements.

The significance of this project is underscored by the collaborative spirit that permeates the efforts of various partners, including scientific institutions and local authorities. Ulrike Wielatt, Managing Director of KielRegion, articulates the importance of funding programs like "Science Comes to Town," which not only amplify local research visibility but also create a lasting legacy of scientific awareness in communities. The commitment to hosting a Europe-wide science communication project in 2026 offers an exciting glimpse into the future of public engagement with science. Events such as the European Union Contest for Young Scientists (EUCYS) represent crucial platforms for inspiring young minds and nurturing the next generation of researchers.

In Split, the initiative embodies a similar ethos, aiming to fortify science-based decision-making within local governance. The city’s Mayor, Ivica Puljak, highlights the beauty of scientific exploration and the vital role it plays in understanding and addressing contemporary challenges. By actively involving citizens in the scientific discourse, Split is not merely a city showcasing science; it is a community cultivating a culture of inquiry. The upcoming projects scheduled for 2026 will ensure that knowledge surpasses disciplinary boundaries, allowing for enriching interactions between researchers, citizens, and policymakers alike.

The ambition of the "Science Comes to Town" project also resonates in Brest, where Mayor François Cuillandre emphasizes the critical need to promote scientific rigor and innovation. By fostering a rich ecosystem that retains talent and encourages young researchers, Brest aims to combat the prevalent skills shortages witnessed across Europe. The planned EU TalentOn competition for young researchers represents a promising step towards igniting enthusiasm among the youth for scientific careers. Brest’s unique blend of institutions and events designed to raise awareness of scientific research will create an engaging backdrop for citizens to explore science from multifaceted perspectives.

The holistic approach adopted by these partner cities conveys a commitment to nurturing scientific communication not just as an academic exercise but as a vital societal necessity. The backing from the European Union exemplifies a broader recognition of the intertwining of science, society, and policy. Through initiatives that promote inclusive dialogue and interaction, the "Science Comes to Town" project is set to transform perceptions of science, making it a fundamental part of everyday life throughout Europe.

Drawing on the lessons learned from the previous initiative, ‘European City of Science,’ this project takes a more localized and participatory approach. The involvement of diverse stakeholders—from universities to community organizations—will ensure a myriad of voices contribute to the scientific narrative. By prioritizing social responsibility and public involvement, the project not only enhances the European Research Area but also directly aligns with the objectives set out in the Pact for Research and Innovation in Europe.

Each city participating in this visionary project exemplifies how localized efforts can yield impactful results on a larger scale. By creating hubs of scientific exchange, Split, Kiel, and Brest are setting benchmarks for how cities can harness the power of collaboration and community engagement. These cities will benefit from a reciprocal flow of knowledge and ideas, as researchers and citizens alike gain a platform to voice their queries, insights, and experiences.

As the 2026 landmarks approach, these cities will serve as beacons of innovation and exploration, inspiring others across Europe to follow suit. The collaborative programming and public outreach will empower communities to take ownership of their scientific narratives, leading to a future where knowledge is co-created and understood as a societal resource. The growing emphasis on participative science reflects a profound shift in how research is perceived, shifting from the confines of academic institutions to the vibrant tapestry of everyday life.

Ultimately, the "Science Comes to Town" project signals a turning point for science communication in Europe. By prioritizing public engagement, enhancing the visibility of scientific endeavors, and promoting a culture of inquiry, this initiative sets a new standard for how society interacts with science. The excitement surrounding this project underscores a collective recognition of the value of integrating science deeper into the fabric of society, turning cities into thriving hubs of knowledge and innovation.

With innovative programming, collaborative efforts, and a commitment to social responsibility, the "Science Comes to Town" initiative resonates with the enduring belief that science should be accessible, engaging, and relevant to our daily lives. As these cities embark on this journey, they not only challenge the status quo of science communication but also inspire a new generation to embrace curiosity and uncover the wonders of research and discovery.

This initiative marks a significant stride towards an inclusive future where science is not just a subject confined to laboratories but an integral part of the community fabric. As cities continue to forge paths of collaboration and exploration, we witness the dawn of a transformative era where scientific literacy and public involvement become intertwined, ultimately fostering a society that values knowledge, curiosity, and innovation at its core.

Subject of Research: Science Communication and Public Engagement
Article Title: Bridging Communities through Science: The "Science Comes to Town" Initiative
News Publication Date: October 2023
Web References: Science Comes to Town Project
References: European City of Science
Image Credits: Kiel University

Keywords: Science Education, Science Communication, Public Engagement, Research Innovation, Community Science