Last month, a gathering was hosted by Dr. Guillaume Cabanac of the University of Toulouse and Dr. Leslie McIntosh of Digital Science at the Institut Universitaire de France. Its brief was to consider a way forward in ensuring the integrity of the global research process, and it resulted in the Forensic Scientometrics (FoSci) Declaration. Dr. McIntosh graciously agreed to sit down with me for a virtual interview.
The Paris Declaration defines “Forensic Scientometrics” as “a forensic, data-driven effort to uphold scientific integrity and public trust in science.” Can you tell us how this initiative came about, and what led to the meeting that resulted in the Declaration?
The idea for Forensic Scientometrics (FoSci) emerged after years of observing fragmented efforts to address challenges in research integrity. By November 2023, it was clear that while various groups—publishers, researchers, and institutions — worked independently to combat issues like disinformation and problematic publications, no coordinated approach existed across sectors. This realization led to the proposal of FoSci, which aims to gather the collective people addressing critical threats in science — image or data manipulation, disinformation laundering, foreign interference in research, or the unethical use of AI in scholarly communication.
In 2024, FoSci piloted its initiative with a series of events and outputs, including the release of foundational publications, training courses, and strategic meetings. Notably, the FoSci Paris Declaration marked a pivotal moment, emphasizing the importance of this ‘collective’ to protect the integrity of the scientific record. This groundwork has set the stage for continued efforts in 2025, with plans for global training, investigations, and advancing the tools and methods of forensic scientometrics. More details can be found in the first FoSci blog of 2025, the motivation is found in this paragraph:
Many disparate groups work independently to detect and, in some cases, prevent, nefarious scientific activities. While there has been an effort within sectors (e.g., publishers) to facilitate the exchange of information for lapses in research integrity, essential actors in scholarly communications have no coordinated communication approach across sectors. These key stakeholders with integrity and security expertise include researchers, independent scholars, research institutions, librarians, journalists, government officials, funders, and lawyers among others. While many of us communicate with one another, no coordinated approach to communicate and combat the proliferation of disinformation exists.
The Declaration calls out “pressure on scientists to publish increasing quantities of output.” Let me pose a slightly provocative question: should we be slowing down our production of scientific outputs, or formally reporting on science more selectively, or… ?
Yes and no.
When it comes to formal publications, I believe we should indeed shift focus from the quantity of outputs to the quality of research produced. The pressure to publish in large volumes often incentivizes poor practices, such as rushing to publish incomplete or flawed studies — or taking shortcuts that are either seriously unethical (e.g., manipulating data) or skirt the lines of ethical behavior (e.g., salami slicing work). Instead, researchers, journals, and institutions should be rewarded for rigorous, thoughtful, and impactful work that contributes meaningfully to the scientific community.
Where we don’t need to slow down is in scholarly communication, which is discussed in another question.
What is the proper role of academic and research institutions in ensuring that the science emanating from them adheres to proper standards of scholarship? Do they need to be doing something differently?
Institutions are key players in building and keeping trust in scholarship; they are definitely responsible for proper standards of scholarship. These responsibilities naturally need to be balanced with academic freedom, yet academic freedom should adhere to ethical standards.
One area for improvement is for institutions to clearly define their values and align their policies — especially concerning agreements with third parties — to those values while supporting their researchers. Another area is in understanding why researchers might engage in unethical activities, whether due to mistakes or pressures, and providing mechanisms for them to address these issues constructively is vital.
And finally, and a bit trickier due to privacy issues, institutions also have a key role in fostering transparent communication with journals (and journals with institutions) to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record.
The Declaration talks not only about the dangers of flawed or fraudulent science, but also about the dangers of social misuse of science – whether or not the science itself is responsibly produced. In the scholarly communication ecosystem, what can we do to help find the right balance between preserving freedom of thought and inquiry and combating the ideological abuse of science?
Those who control the narrative control the culture.
Scholarly communication is vital to ensuring that the narrative reflects the realities of how research operates, the value of skepticism, and the iterative nature of discovery. Science and scholarship is inherently messy — a process of searching, failing, and iterating toward truth — and we must communicate this complexity to build trust while remaining transparent about challenges.
Those who control the cultural narrative control how science is perceived and used, for better or worse. If we, as a collective scholarly community, fail to take charge of this messaging, others with potentially ideological or self-serving agendas will fill the void. This is not a prospect I can accept, and it underscores the urgency of fostering communication that is authentic, engaging, and resilient against misuse.
The Declaration includes a list of fraudulent and dishonest science practices – data manipulation, fake conferences, image duplication, etc. – but does not mention predatory journals, which seems particularly odd given the Declaration’s stated concern over “the mass production of problematic papers.” Was this omission deliberate, and if so, why?
This was not deliberate. It was a whirlwind of a meeting and we most likely didn’t capture the real problem of predatory journals. We did want the list to be examples and not exhaustive, but we ended up putting a lot in there and still missed things like predatory publishers!
Can you say more about “redemption paths” (“procedures to extract researchers who have participated in problematic research practices”), and how such procedures can be implemented without creating more perverse incentives against transparency?
Redemption paths for researchers who commit minor ethical lapses are critical for maintaining research integrity while allowing individuals to rehabilitate their careers. Many universities have strong research integrity offices that offer structured pathways for researchers to learn from their mistakes and regain trust. These approaches often include mandatory ethics training, restorative practices such as correcting past errors, and monitored re-entry into research roles.
While such individual-focused paths are essential, there is a growing need to address systemic issues, offering appropriate recourse for organizations that perpetuate unethical practices — a more complex but necessary challenge to tackle. What this looks like for publishers is to be determined — for example, if you know an author has previously purchased authorship on a paper — how does a journal or publisher move forward? But I do believe that by advancing both individual and systemic accountability, the research community can foster a culture of integrity and trust.