The Lancet and scientific integrity

We have learned in the past that the Lancet published editorials that clearly separated the journal from the publisher Elsevier

Reed Elsevier’s response is that the sale of military equipment is legal, government supported, and tightly regulated. However, The Lancet‘s collaborations in child survival and health-systems strengthening, for example, risk being tainted by Reed Elsevier’s promotion of the “selling process” of arms.

Of course you can’t sell weapons and distance yourself from selling weapons at the same time…

Another split relationship can be found now with scientific integrity.  Elsevier/The Lancet knows that scientific integrity is a key survival strategy for the future of scientific publishing.

So it does not come unexpected that Elsevier is now an “elephant sponsor” for a forthcoming conference of research integrity.

 

https://twitter.com/WCRIFoundation/status/1516363479753633792

 

At the same time the Lancet is not responding to numerous PubPeer entries like one that I wrote some years ago. When talking to a senior editor at the REWARD conference in Berlin 2020 she said, the Lancet can’t do anything about  these “old stories” as experts and documents will be no more available.  Is there an expiry date of scientific integrity? Do we need any further documents here?

And well , working on image integrity in scientific papers, I came also across another example of Elsevier infiltrating the integrity community – the Headt Center in Berlin – as highlighted also recently at Twitter

 

https://twitter.com/brembs/status/1517417659612205057

 

Headt has identified just one faked image while PubPeer users found thousands in the same time. IMHO the Headt output by April 2022  looks a bit weird…

 

Screenshot 25/4/2022 https://headt.eu

Yes, I am a bit disappointed by The Lancet who printed 7 of my papers.