A recent debate at the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) conference has highlighted the continued importance of scientific journal editors in addressing misinformation. Philipp Koellinger, CEO and co-founder of the open science preprint network DeSci Labs, argued that while editors cannot control how research is interpreted after publication, they are responsible for maintaining rigorous standards to prevent misinformation from taking root.
Koellinger explained, “It is obvious that editors of scientific journals cannot control how every article they publish gets interpreted, used, or indeed weaponised by others.” He noted that science often deals with complex problems, and in a media environment shaped by short attention spans and populist narratives, nuanced research is frequently misunderstood or misused.
Even with these challenges, Koellinger stressed that editors are not absolved of responsibility. “The core responsibility for the editor of an academic journal is making sure that what they publish advances science. This necessitates high standards for academic rigor, requiring convincing evidence to support the claims made in an article, and ensuring that results are communicated in a manner that minimises the risk of misinterpretation. Doing so upholds the editors’ personal reputation as well as that of their journal.”
The debate took place at the EASE 2025 conference in Oslo, held from 14 to 16 May. Council members Are Brean and Haseeb Irfanullah discussed whether editors should be accountable for addressing misinformation. According to a report in the Scholarly Kitchen, two main arguments were presented against this responsibility. First, editors are already under significant pressure. Unlike journalistic editors, scientific editors are often unpaid volunteers who juggle many tasks, including overseeing peer review, checking for plagiarism and artificial intelligence misuse, and managing diversity and ethics criteria.
Second, it was suggested that correcting misinformation should fall to government bodies, fact-checkers, regulators, and the mainstream media rather than to editors alone.
Despite these arguments, the debate reinforced the view that editors remain central to the integrity of scientific publishing. Publishing flawed or misleading research undermines the credibility of journals. If editors do not take responsibility for evaluating submissions carefully, the value of the entire editorial process is called into question.
A comment following the debate suggested that editorial gatekeeping may be failing. While this may apply to predatory journals and paper mills, credible journals still reject most submissions. This indicates that responsible editorial gatekeeping remains strong in established publications.
Koellinger emphasised the importance of peer review in maintaining quality. DeSci Labs has developed an artificial intelligence tool that helps editors identify qualified and conflict-free reviewers. This system aims to improve the standard of peer review and reduce the risk of incorrect or misleading findings being published.
He added that misinformation often stems from the misinterpretation of legitimate research. While editors cannot monitor how articles are discussed after publication, they can take steps to prevent problems from arising. These include encouraging clear framing of results, promoting transparency through the sharing of data and code, and using retractions and corrections when necessary. Improving the incentive structure for peer review may also enhance the reliability of published findings.
The EASE conference also featured sessions on research integrity and the use of artificial intelligence in editorial workflows. Kim Eggleton from the Institute of Physics Publishing discussed how human judgement remains essential for detecting bias and misconduct, stating that scientific evaluation requires nuance beyond the capabilities of current technologies. Another session introduced free tools for identifying manipulated images and content generated by artificial intelligence, giving editors practical resources to uphold publishing standards.
Koellinger concluded, “Editors cannot prevent all misinformation; that’s an impossible task. However, they play a key role by preventing it at the source. Their jobs are difficult, but with better editorial support, new tools, and a revamp of peer review with a better incentive structure, their jobs can be made easier as they carry responsibility for what is published.”
DeSci Labs will soon launch a free artificial intelligence-powered referee finder designed to help editors locate suitable reviewers quickly. This allows them to concentrate on making sound publishing decisions. More information is available at desci.com.
