As I was scrolling through my X feed (as I usually do in trying to keep up with new Oncology studies and approvals), I came across an interesting post by Dr Paolo Tarantino, written in Jun 24.
He highlights the retraction of a paper published in Nature, the “RECTRACTED ARTICLE: Time-of-day immunochemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial”, published in Feb 2026, and makes a few considerations about this retraction.
He also raises a broader question: the scientific integrity we expect from the scientific publishing process.
Scientific integrity is the foundation of Science as we know today. Our research, development and progress happen through the work of many minds, piece by piece. The more pieces we add, the closer we are to solving the puzzle. However, if one piece is tempered with or, for any reason, not to be trusted, the whole system becomes fragile.
As I read his post, I could not help relating deeply to his words. Retractions such as the one Dr Tarantino highlighted are of concern, for it might make many of us uncomfortable when dealing with groundbreaking and/or unexpected results. However, when thinking about his post and considering his words on science and its integrity, it came to me that retractions aren’t the only way to undermine scientific trust.
In my view, aside from the massive number of papers and research being submitted for publication and the relatively small number of peer reviewers to keep up with the workload without compromising quality, which Dr. Tarantino points out, there is another critical issue in scientific publishing: the publication fees charged by some journals.
Being a developing country physician myself, I know firsthand the struggles we face having to provide patient care, teach residents and medical interns and work on bureaucracy. Time set aside exclusively for research rarely is accounted as work hours, and conducting research is an independent choice that is fueled by force of will and academic curiosity, because it is done in your free time, mostly without funds or any aid whatsoever.
The description of my workplace is applicable to many others in Brazil and, I dare say, to other developing countries. The reason why I described it is simple: to illustrate that the research done under those circumstances is not as – for a lack of a better word – appreciated by the publishers, because we simply cannot afford to pay for them to be published.
The first time I heard of this ”fee” I was a medical student and it bothered me deeply, and as time went by, it bothered me even more. It bothers me because great findings might not see the light of day because the center that conducted the reserach had no funds to pay to get it published. This generates publication bias – whoever can pay publishes, and if your findings are of interest but you cannot afford its publication, well, that is just knowledge lost.
Many aspects of scientific publishing already involve costs that create financial and educational burdens on low resource institutions that cannot access the content of those publications. This restricted access makes it even harder to conduct research in those scenarios. Graduate students, researchers, health care providers, all have a harder time getting access to evidence for their works. This impacts research and education, the very foundations of development, as well as direct patient care.
Science cost money. Research cost money. I am not as naïve as to disregard its importance. However, in times where there is so much talk about equality of access, financial burden of healthcare, the inclusion of professionals from low resources backgrounds, it is baffling to me that this issue hasn’t been more discussed. This bias goes deep into what Dr Tarantino said in his text: goes to scientific integrity. Until a time comes when money is not a barrier for publishing research, there can be no true scientific credibility.
Written by Helena Kremer