Brief synopsis
Research integrity problems in oncology are not only medical issues; they are also ethics and governance issues because poor publishing practices, undisclosed commercial influence, and unequal access to leadership can distort the evidence used in patient care and policy. This oral presentation therefore uses oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as a case study for broader integrity concerns. Rather than reporting a single survey, it synthesizes three complementary studies from our consortium: a global survey on predatory journals, ONCOTRUST-1 (a global pilot survey on conflict-of-interest literacy and disclosure perceptions), and GEORGiNA-1 (a North Africa gender-equity audit of publications, societies, journals, and mentorship outcomes). Together, these studies identify how structural pressure, weak safeguards, and inequitable opportunities shape research integrity risks in under-resourced settings and point to feasible institutional responses, including future collaboration with European colleagues working on academic integrity.
Key questions / aims
· How common are predatory journal solicitations and self-reported publication in questionable outlets among oncology professionals, and which contextual factors increase vulnerability in LMIC settings?
· How accurately do oncology professionals recognize common conflict-of-interest (COI) scenarios, and what institutional and commercial pressures shape disclosure and prescribing environments?
· What gender patterns appear across authorship, leadership-proxy roles, funding, and collaboration in North African oncology research, and what early outcomes emerged from a pilot mentorship programme?
· Which safeguards are most actionable for LMIC-focused integrity programming, including training, disclosure systems, oversight, and equitable leadership/funding pathways?
Methods
Research integrity threats—predatory publishing, inadequate COI disclosure, and gender inequity—can undermine trustworthy science in oncology, where research findings influence clinical care and policy. We present a no-funding, multi-study synthesis integrating three distinct components. First, the predatory-journals study was a 29-item global cross-sectional survey designed to assess awareness, practices, exposure to predatory solicitations, and risk factors for publishing in questionable outlets; data were analysed with descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. Second, ONCOTRUST-1 was a separate 27-item English-language pilot online survey designed to examine oncologists’ knowledge and perceptions of COI, their interactions with industry, and views on measures to improve disclosure; results were reported descriptively. Third, GEORGiNA-1 was not a survey but a North Africa equity audit and mentorship evaluation: it manually extracted authorship and leadership-related metrics from 7,774 PubMed-indexed oncology publications (2018–2022), reviewed society and editorial representation, and evaluated outputs from a pilot men-led mentorship programme. This structure allows us to compare three different integrity domains—publishing quality, transparency of competing interests, and equity in research leadership—within one applied LMIC framework.
Findings
Across datasets, structural pressures and limited safeguards were prominent. In the predatory-journals survey (n=426), 67.8% reported email solicitations and 13.4% reported prior publication in a predatory journal; fast editorial decisions, low publication charges, limited peer review, and perceived academic gain were common drivers. Practising in LMICs was associated with higher odds of predatory publishing (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.01–4.03). For an integrity audience, this matters because weak or absent peer review can contaminate the evidence base used in clinical guidance. In ONCOTRUST-1 (n=200; 70.9% practicing in LMICs; 47.5% women), only 24% correctly identified all listed COI scenarios; 40.5% reported weekly visits from pharmaceutical representatives, and only 35.5% reported that local COI regulations existed in their countries. This indicates gaps not only in knowledge but also in disclosure infrastructure. In GEORGiNA-1 (7,774 publications), women accounted for about half of first authors but were less represented as senior authors/principal investigators, had less funding and fewer international collaborations, and remained underrepresented on some editorial boards and in leadership roles; the mentorship pilot generated early outputs including publications, conference presentations, and academic progression. Taken together, the findings show that integrity in LMIC oncology is shaped by both individual behaviour and structural conditions.
Main message / implications
These convergent findings support LMIC-tailored integrity interventions that are understandable and transferable beyond medicine: (1) training and institutional screening to reduce predatory-journal vulnerability; (2) clearer COI policies, open disclosure mechanisms/databases, and scenario-based education to strengthen transparency around industry relationships; and (3) equity-oriented funding, mentorship, and leadership pathways so that integrity initiatives do not reproduce existing structural exclusions. Although derived from oncology, these lessons are relevant to wider academic and research integrity debates because they show how pressure, opacity, and unequal opportunity can jointly weaken trustworthy knowledge production.
Keywords: research integrity, conflicts of interest, predatory publishing, oncology, gender equity, LMICs
Acknowledgements: ChatGPT was used to improve language and grammar.
References:
1. El Bairi, K., Trapani, D., Nidhamalddin, S. J., et al. (2024). Global landscape of the attack of predatory journals in oncology. JCO Global Oncology, 10, e2300287. https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.23.00287
2. El Bairi, K., Trapani, D., Teuwen, L.-A., Rodrigues, B., & Mutebi, M. (2024). Integrity matters in oncology: AORTIC takes a stand against research misconduct. BJC Reports, 2, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44276-023-00032-8
3. El Bairi, K., Najem, S., Chowdhury, A. R., et al. (2024). Conflict of interest disclosure in oncology: Preliminary insights from the global ONCOTRUST-1 cross-sectional study. JCO Global Oncology, 10, e2400167. https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00167
4. El Bairi, K., Najem, S., Teuwen, L.-A. M. N., Belbaraka, R., & GEORGiNA Study Collaborators. (2025). Advancing gender equity in cancer research across North Africa: A comprehensive analysis of women’s role and men’s supportive efforts—Final findings from the GEORGiNA-1 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 43(16_suppl), 9044. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.9044