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 the Head of Editorial Ethics and Quality Assurance at Frontiers, Dr. Soulière brings an unparalleled depth of experience, having shaped policy and operational standards across multiple facets of editorial and research integrity. Her stewardship is not only a testament to her individual dedication but also emblematic of the evolving landscape of scholarly communication where ethical considerations are paramount. Serving a three-year term from 2026 to 2029, she will play a pivotal role in guiding COPE’s mission to reinforce best practices on a global scale at a time when the complexities of digital publishing and artificial intelligence are reshaping the industry.

Dr. Soulière’s trajectory with COPE began in 2020 when she was elected to the Council. Since then, she has been at the forefront of critical discussions around emerging technological interventions in publishing workflows, particularly the ethical ramifications of artificial intelligence (AI). Her seminal contribution to the discussion document on ‘Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making’ has been influential in framing the accountability and transparency mechanisms necessary to maintain trust amid increasing automation. The document also addresses innate biases and champions the importance of human oversight in algorithm-driven processes.

The role of AI in publication workflows is multifaceted, encompassing manuscript screening, peer review facilitation, and quality assurance checks. Under Dr. Soulière’s guidance, COPE has advanced nuanced recommendations that balance the efficiency gains from AI against the imperative for ethical scrutiny and bias mitigation. This delicate interplay is critical as publishers strive to uphold the integrity of scholarly outputs while harnessing innovative technologies to streamline editorial operations.

Beyond AI governance, Dr. Soulière chairs COPE’s papermill working group—an initiative tackling the rampant issue of fabricated manuscripts produced by unethical paper mills. These mills exploit vulnerabilities in the peer review system, flooding scientific literature with fraudulent and unreliable research. Her leadership in this arena includes developing proactive strategies to detect and mitigate such threats, thus safeguarding the credibility of academic records.

In tandem with COPE, Dr. Soulière notably spearheaded the formulation of the 2025 COPE and STM guides concerning guest-edited collections. These guides provide essential frameworks for publishers to manage special issue submissions with heightened transparency and conflict-of-interest disclosures, thereby promoting ethical rigor during editorial oversight. This collaborative effort underscores her role in setting industry-wide benchmarks that influence global scholarly publishing standards.

Dr. Soulière’s tenure at Frontiers since 2013 positions her uniquely to bridge practical editorial challenges with ethical policymaking. Her cross-departmental leadership encompasses initiatives from peer review enhancement to research integrity protocols. Most recently, she contributed significantly to the Artificial Intelligence Review Assistant (AIRA), Frontiers’ cutting-edge AI-driven tool designed to augment editorial decision-making processes. AIRA exemplifies the blend of technology and ethics that defines modern publishing innovation.

The election of Dr. Soulière as a COPE Trustee is timely, as the publishing landscape navigates unprecedented shifts spurred by open access proliferation, digital transformation, and evolving academic norms. Her vision prioritizes ethical foresight, responding to challenges such as data fabrication, predatory journals, and the nuanced ethical dilemmas posed by emerging AI capabilities. Her trusteeship augurs well for the stewardship of scholarly integrity in an era demanding both technological agility and moral clarity.

Moreover, Dr. Soulière’s impact transcends policy drafting. She fosters a culture of continuous quality improvement by engaging with diverse stakeholders including publishers, editors, reviewers, and researchers. Through dialogue and advocacy, she promotes transparency and accountability, essential pillars to rebuild and maintain public trust in science. Her election reflects a collective recognition that ethical leadership is paramount amid the complex, interconnected challenges facing academic publication.

As COPE continues to evolve as a leading authority on publishing ethics, Dr. Soulière’s stewardship will be instrumental in driving contemporary reforms. The next three years promise initiatives that integrate AI with robust ethical frameworks, enhance fraud detection mechanisms, and promote equitable publishing practices globally. Her role ensures that COPE remains proactive and adaptive, navigating the balance between innovation and integrity with judicious expertise.

In conclusion, Dr. Marie Soulière’s appointment as COPE Trustee symbolizes a reaffirmation of scholarly publishing’s dedication to ethical excellence at a critical juncture. Her rich background in editorial ethics, combined with her pioneering work on AI governance and research integrity, equips her to champion initiatives that safeguard the validity and transparency of academic knowledge. The broader academic community eagerly anticipates her continued contributions, which are poised to reinforce trust and quality in the dissemination of science.

Subject of Research: Scholarly Publishing Ethics, Editorial Integrity, Artificial Intelligence in Publishing

Article Title: Dr. Marie Soulière Elected as Trustee of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

News Publication Date: 2024

Web References: Available upon request from Frontiers and COPE official communications

Keywords: Publication ethics, COPE, editorial integrity, artificial intelligence, scholarly publishing, research transparency, paper mills, peer review, open access, academic publishing ethics