One-sentence definition

In research and publishing, whistleblowing is the act of reporting suspected misconduct or systemic practices that threaten the integrity, reliability, or trustworthiness of the scholarly record.

Key takeaways

• Whistleblowing is essential to safeguarding the integrity of science, particularly where peer review and editorial checks fall short.

• Many of the most significant corrections to the scientific record have come from post-publication scrutiny by researchers and independent experts.

• Whistleblowers often face professional and personal risk, making clear protections and confidential reporting channels critical.

• Publishers play a central role in responding to concerns, coordinating investigations, and correcting the literature transparently.

• When supported properly, whistleblowing drives systemic improvements and reinforces a culture where research integrity matters more than prestige or metrics.

Why whistleblowing matters in research and publishing

Whistleblowing in scientific publishing plays a critical role in protecting the reliability of the academic record, often at significant personal and professional risk to those who speak up.

In the context of research and publishing, whistleblowing refers to the reporting of suspected research or publication misconduct that could compromise the integrity of the scientific record. Whistleblowers are frequently researchers, reviewers, editors, or publishing staff with deep subject‑matter expertise, enabling them to detect problems that may not be obvious during peer review.

Concerns raised by whistleblowers typically fall into three broad categories:

1. Research misconduct, including data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, manipulated images or figures, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and misreported methods or outcomes.

2. Publication and editorial misconduct, such as ghost or guest authorship, undisclosed industry involvement, peer review manipulation, and duplicate publication.

3. Systemic or institutional issues, including suppression of negative results, retaliation against researchers who raise integrity concerns, editorial favoritism, or decisions influenced by commercial or sponsor pressure.

Whistleblowers may report concerns internally - to institutions, funders, or journals - or externally to regulators, watchdog organizations, or the media. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Office of Research Integrity describe whistleblowers as an ‘essential element’ in protecting research integrity and encourage the use of formal reporting channels. In Europe, guidance from open research bodies similarly emphasizes the need for safe and confidential routes for raising concerns. Publication ethics organizations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provide structured flowcharts to help editors respond consistently and fairly when concerns are raised.

In parallel, platforms such as PubPeer allow researchers to flag potential issues publicly or anonymously after publication. These forums support post‑publication scrutiny and enable honest errors to be corrected without immediately assigning blame.

When whistleblowing changed the scientific record

High‑profile cases illustrate how whistleblowing, often after publication, has corrected the record and driven lasting reforms.

The STAP cell scandal

In 2014, Nature published two papers describing a simple method for generating stimulus‑triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cells. Shortly after publication, researchers began identifying problems with the papers, including manipulated images, plagiarized text, and altered data. An investigation by the Japanese research institute RIKEN ultimately found scientific misconduct, leading to retractions.

Beyond the individual case, the scandal prompted stricter national guidelines on research misconduct in Japan, mandatory ethics training, and stronger oversight of publicly funded research. It also demonstrated the value of post‑publication scrutiny when peer review fails to detect serious flaws.

The Tamiflu data transparency case

Tamiflu was widely stockpiled worldwide based on published evidence suggesting it reduced influenza complications. In 2009, concerns were raised that much of the evidence underlying these claims came from unpublished trials. Independent researchers, advocacy groups, and The BMJ spent years pushing for access to the full clinical study reports.

When the complete data were finally analyzed, updated systematic reviews concluded that Tamiflu did not meaningfully reduce complications or transmission. This episode highlighted how publication bias and selective reporting can distort entire evidence bases, and how persistent, system‑level whistleblowing can drive greater transparency in clinical research.

The Surgisphere COVID‑19 controversy

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, a study published in The Lancet linked hydroxychloroquine to increased mortality in hospitalized patients. Researchers soon identified inconsistencies in the underlying dataset, sourced from the company Surgisphere. When independent auditors were denied access to verify the data, the paper was retracted, along with a related study in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The case underscored the risks of accelerated publishing without sufficient data verification, as well as the growing role of open letters, social media, and post‑publication peer review in identifying problems at speed.

Image manipulation in neurodegenerative disease research

More recently, investigations reported by Science revealed extensive image reuse and manipulation across papers authored by a prominent Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease researcher. Anomalies were first flagged on PubPeer by independent researchers, prompting a formal investigation that confirmed widespread misconduct.

This case demonstrated that even highly respected figures are not immune from scrutiny and that community‑driven oversight remains essential.

What whistleblowing protects and improves

Protecting the integrity of the scholarly record

Whistleblowers are often the only mechanism through which hidden misconduct comes to light. Research‑integrity bodies note that authors rarely self‑report serious misconduct, making external scrutiny essential. Correcting or retracting unreliable work prevents flawed findings from influencing future research, clinical practice, public policy, or regulation.

Safeguarding patients, public health, and the environment

Many whistleblowing cases involve clinical or environmental research, where flawed evidence can lead to ineffective or harmful interventions, misallocated resources, or regulatory failure. Acting on credible concerns helps prevent real‑world harm and protects public trust in science.

Driving systemic change

Repeated concerns around similar issues, such as data transparency or image manipulation, often lead to structural reforms, including stronger integrity policies, improved training, and clearer data‑sharing requirements.

Reinforcing a culture of integrity

When whistleblowers are taken seriously and protected, it sends a clear signal that ethical conduct matters more than prestige or metrics. This is particularly important for early‑career researchers, for whom fear of retaliation can otherwise silence legitimate concerns.

Why publishers have a responsibility to support whistleblowers

Publishers occupy a central position between authors, institutions, and the wider research community. Supporting whistleblowers aligns with both ethical obligations and long‑term interests.

• Legal and ethical responsibilities: Many jurisdictions provide protections for individuals who disclose research misconduct. Publishers also commit, through COPE membership and internal codes, to investigate allegations fairly and correct the record when needed.

• Trust and reputation: High‑profile failures to respond transparently can damage confidence in journals and publishers. Clear, timely, and open handling of concerns strengthens long‑term credibility.

• Crowdsourced quality control: Whistleblowers extend quality assurance beyond peer review, identifying issues in statistics, images, or large datasets that editorial checks may miss.

• Reducing long‑term risk: Early engagement with credible concerns can limit the scale of retractions, legal exposure, and reputational harm.

Practical ways publishers can support whistleblowers

Based on guidance from COPE and established best practices, publishers can strengthen whistleblower support by:

• providing clear, accessible reporting channels, including options for confidential or anonymous disclosure.

• publishing transparent whistleblowing and investigation policies, outlining how concerns are triaged, assessed, and resolved.

• committing to confidentiality and non‑retaliation for good‑faith complainants.

• investing in investigative capacity, including access to image‑forensics tools, statistical expertise, and independent reviewers.

• coordinating with institutions and funders when allegations require access to raw data or formal inquiries.

• communicating outcomes clearly through corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern, and acknowledging the role of external concerns where appropriate.

• normalizing post‑publication critique through editorials, guidance, and training for editors and editorial boards.

How Frontiers supports whistleblowers

Frontiers recognizes whistleblowers as vital partners in maintaining research integrity. Many individuals who raise concerns are domain experts who identify issues that evade standard editorial checks and often do so at personal risk.

Heather Slater, Research Integrity Specialist at Frontiers, notes:

“They often take big risks to expose issues with internal processes that would evade detection from elsewhere. Sleuths performing post-publication checks usually do so in their own time, with their own resources, and can risk significant backlash for their efforts. Recognition of their input is very important, which is why Frontiers now acknowledges whistleblowers in retraction statements with their consent.”

When investigations lead to retractions, Frontiers offers whistleblowers the option to be acknowledged in retraction notices, with their consent. This approach reflects a commitment to transparency, accountability, and recognition of the essential role whistleblowers play in safeguarding the scientific record.

Concerns about articles published by Frontiers can be reported directly to the research integrity team at research.integrity@frontiersin.org. Frontiers also monitors PubPeer; comments posted there automatically alert the team, triggering an initial assessment.