The need for verification markers on published content

Abstract

Ethics and integrity cases in submitted manuscripts is becoming an increasingly common problem, whilst retractions continue to grow at a rapid rate. These cases are caused by both intentional misconduct and fraud, as well as a host of unintentional poor research practices. Whilst most good journals undertake a range of checks to spot these issues ahead of peer review and publication, which checks have been conducted and passed are unclear to the reader, and most preprint servers conduct far more limited checks. As preprints become increasingly recognised as valued outputs of research, they will likely become a growing target for problematic submissions. This article explores the need to develop standards around the labelling of checks conducted and passed across all types of publication outlets, to better inform the reader how much to trust an article or preprint. It describes a couple of recent developments to create such labelling and more rigorously verified preprints, and explores the need for a more nuanced expectation around checks and peer review on different types of research outputs. Finally, it proposes that NISO (or a similar neutral entity) work to bring together relevant providers and members of the community to develop and agree a standard framework and metadata for these checks and verification.