In Blog

At Insight Editing London, we see first-hand the challenges that researchers face in writing and publishing responsibly. Every week we edit manuscripts where authors are doing excellent science, but every now and then we come across examples where the way in which the science is written risks unintentionally undermining its integrity. And of course, there are also the wider systemic pressures: competition for funding, the pressure to publish quickly, and the rise of new challenges like AI and paper mills.

This month, we are highlighting some of the issues we encounter most often in scientific communication today. These aren’t abstract problems—you’ll recognise them in discussions in your lab, in peer review reports, and perhaps even in your own drafts. Our aim is to explain why these practices matter, what can go wrong if they are ignored, and how you can avoid the pitfalls.

Our aim here is not to cover every detail, but to raise awareness of the key issues that can affect integrity in scientific communication. To help you take this further, we’ve included links to trusted resources and guidelines where you can explore each topic in more depth.

1. Authorship & Contributorship: Giving Credit Where It’s Due

Questions about authorship are one of the most common integrity issues we hear about from clients. Should a lab head be included? What about the student who generated the data but has since left?

Gift authorship (adding someone with little or no input) and ghost authorship (leaving out someone who made a real contribution) both distort the record. They might feel like small compromises in the moment, but they create tension and unfairness.

We’ve seen the consequences: disputes between collaborators, strained relationships, and in some cases, corrections or even retractions. The best solution is transparency. Talk about authorship early, update agreements as the project develops, and use contributorship statements to spell out everyone’s role.

2. Attribution & Plagiarism: Respecting the Work of Others

As editors, we sometimes come across text that looks “borrowed.” Often it isn’t intentional plagiarism, but rather careless paraphrasing or recycling wording from an earlier paper. Still, it matters.

Plagiarism—whether direct copying, close paraphrasing, or recycling your own text without acknowledgement—misrepresents originality. Journals use detection software and take it seriously. Consequences can include rejection, retraction, or worse.

The solution is simple: cite properly, paraphrase carefully, and if in doubt, over-acknowledge rather than under.

3. Ethical Writing & Data Reporting: Telling the Whole Story

One of the issues we notice most in manuscripts is not outright misconduct, but overstatement. For example, presenting results as more definitive than they are, or ignoring contradictory findings. Sometimes this comes from enthusiasm—it’s natural to want to highlight your strongest results—but it can tip into misrepresentation.

Reviewers are quick to spot cherry-picking or claims that aren’t backed by the data. At best, you’ll be asked for revisions; at worst, trust in your work is damaged.

Our advice: follow reporting guidelines, present limitations openly, and write conclusions that reflect the evidence you have—not the evidence you wish you had.

4. Paper Mills & Predatory Publishers: Protecting the Literature

The rise of paper mills and predatory publishers is something we all need to be vigilant about. We hear from researchers who have been approached with offers of guaranteed publication or authorship slots. It can be tempting under pressure, but it comes with serious risks.

These outlets undermine trust, waste resources, and can permanently damage your reputation. We recommend always checking journals through resources like Think. Check. Submit. or by looking at the editorial board and peer review process.

5. Conflicts of Interest: Transparency Builds Trust

Conflicts of interest aren’t always financial. They can be professional, institutional, or even personal. But whatever the form, lack of disclosure erodes trust.

We sometimes notice missing or incomplete conflict declarations during editing, and we always flag it. It’s better to over-disclose than under-disclose—transparency reassures readers and reviewers.

6. AI Misuse: A New Frontier in Integrity

AI is the newest issue in integrity, and one we’re already seeing in manuscripts. We notice when text feels “AI-smooth”—grammatically perfect but oddly flat, with structural or logical weaknesses.

AI can be useful for refining sentences or cutting word counts, but it cannot interpret data or argue a case. Journals are clear that AI cannot be an author, and use must be declared. Our position is simple: use AI for small tasks if you wish, but never outsource the intellectual core of your paper.

7. Peer Review Ethics: Safeguarding the Process

We also hear stories from clients about unfair or biased peer reviews, or about confidential data leaking from the process. Peer review relies on trust and professionalism.

If you’re invited to review, only accept if you have the right expertise, be transparent about conflicts, and above all, respect confidentiality.

Integrity isn’t just about avoiding misconduct—it’s about building credibility and impact. As editors, we can tell you that reviewers do notice when manuscripts are overstated, under-acknowledged, or poorly structured. And they also notice when they are clear, transparent, and responsible.

At IEL, we help researchers strengthen their manuscripts not only for clarity and flow, but also for integrity. Through our reports, comments, and ongoing dialogue, we aim to make every paper not just publishable, but also a genuine contribution to the field.

If you’re preparing a manuscript and want to ensure it’s not only well written but also ethically sound, get in touch—we’ll be pleased to help.