In a “publish or perish” world, we shouldn’t be shocked — especially considering the more serious scandals. But it is worth noting anyway, for what it tells us about the general atmosphere.

At Chemical and Engineering News, Dalmeet Singh Chawla reports,

More than 20% of chemistry researchers have deliberately added information they believe to be incorrect into their manuscripts during the peer review process, in order to get their papers published.

That’s one conclusion of a study surveying 982 chemistry researchers who were the corresponding authors of at least two papers published in journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry or the American Chemical Society between 2020 and 2023. (ACS publishes C&EN.)

The study, published by Accountability in Research, aimed to document how chemists react when they spot errors in other researchers’ studies or their own manuscripts and what action, if any, they take when they do so.

When asked if they felt they were forced to modify their manuscript with text they thought to be incorrect, 22% of survey respondents said yes. Study author Frédérique Bordignon, a bibliometrician and research integrity officer at École des ponts ParisTech, says one reason for making such a concession is to wrap up the review process and get a paper published. “It’s a bit concerning,” she says.

“1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds,” October 20, 2025

From the study’s Abstract,

While respondents believe errors should be corrected in principle, practical challenges arise due to scientific, social, and pragmatic factors. These include the perceived seriousness of the error, its scientific impact, the age of the publication, and the time required. Difficulties also stem from criticizing others, especially senior colleagues. Despite these challenges, researchers are motivated to correct errors to limit their spread, contribute to the common good, and advance their own work. Researchers prefer informal error correction through private correspondence, discussions with colleagues, or teaching situations, over formal corrections to the scholarly record. The peer-review stage is crucial for detecting and correcting errors, but it is criticized for its deficiencies, including lack of professionalism among reviewers and editors. Some authors yield to reviewer pressure knowingly introducing changes that are clearly wrong. While the low participation rate (2%) does not allow generalization, the study shows that science correction is complex, involving a continuum of practices.

Bordignon, F. (2025). On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors. Accountability in Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106

The authors suggest that “online platforms and repositories can facilitate the transition from off-the-record discussions to on-the-record initiatives” to a way of addressing the problem. That amounts to saying, create a fuss among peers online so as to embarrass people who want to dictate what your study should say.

That approach would certainly work better in most cases than trying to get a broad public involved.