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.

The announcement was made on November 12, 2025, marking a crucial milestone in the ongoing effort to uphold the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Signals Manuscript Checks is renowned for its capability to conduct automated evaluations of academic manuscripts, identifying potential issues related to research integrity. This tool not only provides transparency in the review process but also leverages advanced AI assistance through its unique feature, Sleuth AI.

By implementing Signals Manuscript Checks, JMIR Publications seeks to bolster the efficiency and quality of its editorial practices. The increasing volume of manuscript submissions in digital health necessitates superior mechanisms that can accurately identify integrity issues without compromising the speed of the review process. The dual focus on quality and efficiency is vital as JMIR aims to preserve its reputation as a leading publisher in the field.

Tiffany Leung, MD, MPH, the Scientific Editorial Director at JMIR Publications, emphasized the significance of this integration: “We are steadfast in our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity. Incorporating Signals Manuscript Checks is a transformative step towards ensuring that the research we publish is not only impactful but also trustworthy.” This statement reflects the publishing house’s proactive approach to fostering reliable scientific discourse.

Elliott Lumb, co-founder of Signals, expressed excitement about collaborating with JMIR Publications. He noted, “As a front-runner in digital health, JMIR Publications is critical in defining research integrity standards. Our tools are designed to support their mission without delaying the publication of important health research.” This collaboration presents an opportunity for both organizations to innovate the way manuscripts are evaluated while ensuring that ethical standards are prioritized.

In academia, concerns surrounding research integrity, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship disputes, have been mounting. Signals Manuscript Checks addresses these challenges head-on by deploying advanced technologies that conduct thorough evaluations, providing an added layer of security during the review process. This initiative is not only timely but crucial in an age where misinformation can spread quickly, undermining the credibility of published research.

Moreover, the procedures involved in Signals Manuscript Checks enhance the human editorial team’s capabilities by identifying inconsistencies and potential ethical violations early in the review process. This paradigm shift allows editors to focus on substantive content and quality-assurance tasks, ultimately leading to the production of more reliable scholarship.

The integration of AI in research publishing signifies a broader trend in the academic world where technological advancements are being harnessed to facilitate improvements in scholarly work. By merging human expertise with machine intelligence, JMIR Publications is setting a precedent for how the academic community engages with technology in publishing practices.

The user-friendly interface of Signals Manuscript Checks is expected to smoothly integrate into JMIR Publications’ existing editorial workflows. This transition is crucial as it minimizes disruptions while maximizing the potential of research quality enhancement. The seamless collaboration efforts of both organizations will likely foster a more rigorous and uncompromising approach to manuscript evaluations.

Unlike traditional peer-review mechanisms that can be time-consuming and sometimes opaque, the use of automated evaluations introduces a layer of objectivity into the process. This shift towards a more data-driven approach enhances the overall trustworthiness of the academic publishing ecosystem, a significant advancement given the growing concerns over the integrity of published work.

Furthermore, the collaborative commitment to open science principles positions both JMIR Publications and Signals Manuscript Checks as leaders in the academic publishing landscape. By focusing on transparency, reproducibility, and accountability, they exemplify the future of scholarly communication.

As JMIR Publications advances its mission to deliver impactful digital health research, this partnership underscores the importance of evolving with the challenges of contemporary academia. With capabilities such as comprehensive manuscript reviews and insights from AI, the joint efforts foresee a paradigm shift wherein research integrity is not just a goal, but an achievable standard in the realm of scientific publishing.

In conclusion, the collaboration between JMIR Publications and Signals Manuscript Checks heralds a new chapter in the ongoing quest for research integrity. This partnership not only promises to enhance the quality of published manuscripts but also sets a benchmark for other academic publishers. With a commitment to ethical standards and innovation, both organizations are poised to make significant strides in fostering trustworthy research outputs, ensuring that impactful health research reaches the community effectively.

Subject of Research:
Article Title:
News Publication Date: November 12, 2025
Web References:
References:
Image Credits: JMIR Publications

Keywords

The backdrop to this recognition is impressive. GigaScience Press emerged victorious amidst fierce competition, standing out from nearly 150,000 journals representing 22,000 organizational members utilizing Crossref’s infrastructure. This achievement reflects a high-level commitment to ensuring that their metadata is not only comprehensive but also enriches the reader’s engagement with research outputs. In particular, GigaByte was honored for achieving an incomprehensible 82% coverage of key metadata elements across its records, remarkably the highest among small publishers and second overall in the competition. These metrics are a clear indictment of GigaScience’s undisputed leadership in the realm of metadata excellence.

During the momentous announcement at the Crossref Midyear community meeting, a platform celebrated for its robust contributions to scholarly communication, the importance of accurate metadata for research was highlighted. Crossref, having celebrated its 25-year mark, operates as a not-for-profit organization devoted to enhancing research visibility and reliability by meticulously managing metadata related to various research objects, such as articles, books, and datasets. The tireless efforts of Crossref to facilitate easier access to scholarly resources echo GigaScience Press’s vision to build a more transparent and interconnected research ecosystem.

The drive for open science within GigaScience Press has prompted its teams to work diligently on enriching and making their metadata open and reusable. The CEO of GigaScience Press recognizes that the availability of high-quality, open metadata is crucial for the alignment with the broader aims of open science. This venture not only aids in the discoverability of content but also aligns with the increasing demand for diverse and intelligent data analysis by artificial intelligence systems. Such responsiveness to the changing landscape of research underscores the innovative spirit and forward-thinking approach that GigaScience embodies.

A significant contributor to GigaScience Press’s success in achieving high metadata standards has been the state-of-the-art publishing platform developed by River Valley Technologies. This pioneering XML-first platform effectively captures rich metadata, while linking machine-readable texts and persistent identifiers, which allows for seamless integration with dynamic, interactive features in published works. GigaScience Press’s focus on adopting advanced technology marks a paradigm shift in scholarly publishing, as they continue to bridge the gap between researchers and the end-users of published content.

Rich metadata creates a utility that extends to both human users and machine systems, enhancing the overall engagement with published research. By offering features such as multilingual support and dyslexic-friendly font options, GigaScience Press not only mitigates accessibility challenges but also champions inclusivity in academic discourse. The editorial team has been vocal about these innovations, crediting their technological partner River Valley Technologies for forging a path toward the future of academic publishing through their robust, user-centric platform.

In the wake of winning the CrossRef Metadata Award, GigaScience Press is setting its sights on further growth and innovation. Plans to launch additional journals are already underway, highlighting the organization’s commitment to expanding their reach and offering affordable, interactive solutions to other journals looking to enhance their publication workflows. Through such initiatives, GigaScience Press seeks to foster a new wave of open science publishing that prioritizes quality and accessibility.

The recognition earned by GigaScience is not merely a badge of honor; it signifies the organization’s ongoing commitment to setting industry benchmarks in the realm of open access publishing. By maintaining a focus on providing high-quality metadata—consistent with guidelines that were soon to become best practices—the GigaByte journal has also earned esteemed accolades such as the DOAJ Seal, which recognizes journals excelling in open access standards. This further establishes GigaScience as a leading name in the scholarly publishing world.

GigaScience Press’s mission aligns seamlessly with the purpose of Crossref: to ensure that scholarly outputs are presented with the utmost integrity and clarity. By promoting high-quality metadata, GigaByte not only adheres to rigorous open access publication standards but also enhances its presence across significant academic databases like PubMed Central, Scopus, and Web of Science. This holistic approach to managing data allows researchers to enjoy better visibility while also facilitating fruitful collaborations across various technical platforms.

As the publishing landscape continues to evolve, innovative measures taken by GigaScience Press have made it a case study for others in the field. The organization’s collaborative efforts with River Valley Technologies are paving the way for research dissemination, further supporting endeavors for real-time innovation in scholarly publishing. In a world increasingly dominated by digital workflows and data analytics, the integration of advanced technology becomes a vital component of maintaining scholarly rigor.

Moreover, this award encourages GigaScience Press to remain steadfast in its pursuit of metadata excellence, acknowledging that success is rooted in a consistent focus on quality. The accolades received thus far represent milestones in an ongoing journey committed to improving the research process from submission through to publication. As GigaScience’s leadership continues to adapt and innovate, their commitment to open science will undoubtedly shape the future of scholarly publishing for years to come.

This recognition not only affirms GigaScience Press’s tactical decisions in adopting cutting-edge technology but also reflects the importance of nurturing partnerships that align with shared values and objectives. With a clear roadmap ahead, GigaScience Press is poised to carry forward its mission of providing high-quality, open-access publications that empower researchers and scholars globally.

Strong collaborations built on mutual respect and shared goals allow GigaScience Press and River Valley Technologies to push the frontier of what publishing can achieve. The recognition from CrossRef serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of metadata that transcends borders, disciplines, and formats, reinforcing the essence of what scholarly communication aims to accomplish.

Finally, as GigaScience Press embarks on new ventures that leverage the lessons learned from this award-winning experience, it undoubtedly sets a high bar for the rest of the industry. There is no doubt that the future of academic publishing will be characterized by an enduring commitment to excellence in metadata management, transparency, and collaboration.

Subject of Research: CrossRef Metadata Award in Scholarly Publishing
Article Title: GigaScience Press Triumphs at Inaugural CrossRef Metadata Awards
News Publication Date: October 2023
Web References: GigaScience Press, River Valley Technologies
References: Not applicable
Image Credits: Metadata Award

Keywords

Academic publishing, Open Science, Metadata quality, Scholarly communication, Digital publishing

The evaluation by SCOAP3, a coalition comprising over 3,000 libraries and research institutions dedicated to supporting open access in particle physics, was conducted between October 1 and December 31, 2024. SCOAP3’s novel annual assessment aims to incentivize publishers to enhance their open science policies by tying compensation to demonstrable improvements in practices such as data sharing, software availability, and increasing the transparency of the publication process. APS’s exemplary performance reflects its strategic emphasis on integrating these principles across its publishing platforms.

Central to APS’s exemplary rating were its advanced policies surrounding data and software availability. By mandating that research data and the computational tools underpinning published articles be openly accessible, APS ensures that studies can be independently verified and built upon, a cornerstone of rigorous scientific progress. This comprehensive approach serves not only the particle physics community but sets a potential benchmark model for other scientific disciplines to emulate.

Metadata practices also played a pivotal role in the APS’s distinction. The Society’s detailed and structured metadata commitment, implemented through recognized standards such as Crossref, facilitates unprecedented discoverability and interoperability of research outputs. By leveraging persistent identifiers like the Research Organization Registry (ROR) and Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), APS ensures that authors, institutions, and research outputs are unambiguously linked and easily traceable across digital platforms.

Furthermore, the accessibility of APS web content was evaluated with particular scrutiny. Adopting inclusive design strategies, the Society’s online portals and journals provide seamless access to a broad audience, including individuals using assistive technologies. This dedication to universal access underscores APS’s mission to eliminate barriers to scientific knowledge dissemination, creating equitable opportunities for engagement across diverse research communities.

APS’s leadership in open science emerges from a legacy rooted in innovation. Since 1991, when it championed the launch of arXiv and the concept of preprints, the Society has consistently advanced initiatives that democratize scientific information. Today, its open science mission permeates not only the three SCOAP3-participating journals—Physical Review Letters, Physical Review C, and Physical Review D—but extends comprehensively to all APS publications, reflecting institutional dedication at every level.

Looking forward, APS is actively exploring novel avenues to further enhance transparency within the peer review process. The Society is currently piloting a peer review assistant powered by artificial intelligence, alongside research integrity checks, in partnership with Purpose-Led Publishing. These technologies aim to augment the rigor and fairness of peer review, reduce biases, and maintain high ethical standards, all while preserving the confidentiality and quality necessary for scientific discourse.

This pioneering spirit aimed at continuous improvement reflects the belief articulated by APS leadership that such efforts are not merely procedural but fundamentally "the right thing to do for science." By enhancing accessibility, discoverability, openness, and transparency, APS ensures its journals are primed to amplify their impact and encourage robust scientific collaboration globally.

The importance of such initiatives is further underscored by Jeff Lewandowski, director of publishing at APS, who emphasized that supporting open science maximizes the return on investment in scientific research. This creates a virtuous cycle where funding bodies, researchers, and the broader public all benefit from more accessible and credible scientific knowledge. Collaboration with entities such as CERN and other society publishers amplifies these collective efforts, building a stronger, more connected research ecosystem.

The unique framework of SCOAP3 enables these advancements by rewarding publishers who commit to open science. With the evolving landscape of academia demanding increasingly transparent and inclusive practices, this kind of assessment sets a new paradigm, encouraging other publishers to follow suit or innovate further to meet rising expectations.

Moreover, the APS commitment extends beyond the mechanics of open access. The Society invests continuously in developing infrastructure and policies that uphold the reproducibility of research findings, one of the pivotal challenges in contemporary science. By ensuring that published articles come with accessible, verifiable data and well-documented software, APS supports scientists in reconstructing, validating, and building on prior work effectively.

In conclusion, the American Physical Society’s leading score in the SCOAP3 evaluation is more than just a accolade; it signifies a transformative advancement in how scientific knowledge is published and shared. It embodies a vision where openness, ethical integrity, and technological innovation converge to propel science forward. As the APS continues to pioneer reforms and technology integrations, it serves as an exemplar for the global academic publishing industry, reinforcing the notion that science thrives best in the open.

Subject of Research: Open Science Practices in Scholarly Publishing, High-Energy Physics Publishing

Article Title: American Physical Society Leads Open Science Publishers in SCOAP3 Evaluation

News Publication Date: 2024

Web References:

• https://www.aps.org/
• https://scoap3.org/
• https://scoap3.org/journals-2025-2027/open-science-elements/
• https://journals.aps.org/prl/
• https://journals.aps.org/prc/
• https://journals.aps.org/prd/
• https://www.purposeledpublishing.org/

Keywords: Open Access, Digital Publishing, Scientific Organizations, Data Availability, Scientific Journals, Academic Policy, Scientific Integrity, Scientific Collaboration, Particle Accelerators, Academic Journals, Publishing Industry, Peer Review, Science Policy, Physics, Particle Physics