“Opportunities & threats: academic media” by Anca Babor, director of customer and markets at BMJ Group, was featured as a feature article on 28 February 2025 in InPublishing, under the Publishing Partners Guide 2025, which accompanied that month’s January/February 2025 issue of InPublishing magazine.

Balancing open access with financial sustainability echoes changes seen in media and creative industries adapting to free content models. Lessons from these industries, such as using personalisation, community engagement, and user driven innovation, can inform publishing strategies. More efficient submission systems and user centred design are needed to speed the journey from submission to acceptance and increase research impact. Preprint platforms, such as medRxiv, show the benefits of early feedback. Smaller publishers, with agile and personalised services, may also thrive.

As digital tools and data driven strategies become central, safeguarding quality and preventing manipulation is essential. Publishers must also align with global standards on equity, diversity, and inclusion to foster an inclusive environment for authors and readers. BMJ Group integrates patient perspectives to ensure research is relevant, ethical, and credible. Other key measures include rigorous peer review and transparent data sharing.

Sustainability is also vital. Publishers should reduce environmental impact and align with global climate goals. BMJ Group has reduced its print frequency and expanded online updates as part of a wider effort to reduce its footprint. Ethical publishing means combining content integrity with sustainable practice and a commitment to inclusivity.

The future of academic publishing belongs to those who can balance innovation with integrity. Adaptability will be essential to meet the challenges ahead.

BMJ Investigations is our dedicated unit of specialist reporters who expose practices that risk public health and undermine trust in healthcare. Through rigorous, evidence-led reporting, the unit shines a light on issues that matter to patients, clinicians and policymakers alike. Over the past decade, our investigative journalism has unearthed research fraud and misconduct, prompted improvements in the transparency of clinical research, led to changes in guidelines and clinical practice, and triggered parliamentary inquiries.

In January 2025, The BMJ revealed that Danone-funded midwives offered branded infant feeding advice inside Tesco stores. The investigation uncovered a commercial pilot with parallels to the “milk nurses” scandal of the 1970s, despite clear and longstanding guidance from WHO and Unicef, advising against direct or indirect contact between formula company representatives and new mothers.

Rebecca Coombes, head of BMJ Investigations, broke the story exclusively in The BMJ. The report examined breaches of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes, and included expert analysis on how the scheme blurred the line between healthcare and commercial promotion. It also included direct testimony from a midwife who resigned over ethical concerns, scrutiny of WHO code violations, and comment from infant nutrition experts, helping to reignite public debate around the marketing of breast-milk substitutes.

“If Tesco wanted to continue to provide an infant feeding service, we would urge them to do so without funding or support from the formula  industry and using information that is aligned with NHS advice, evidence based, and free from any commercial influence.”                                     Vicky Sibson  
 Director of the charity the First Steps Nutrition Trust

Retractions play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of academic publishing and ensuring research credibility. While they are often viewed negatively due to concerns about reputational damage and career impact, BMJ Group sees them as crucial to scientific progress—reinforcing trust, refining evidence, and ultimately improving patient care.

A recent example is The BMJ‘s retraction and replacement of an article on unexpected weight loss as a potential cancer warning sign. After identifying a methodological error, Dr Brian Nicholson and his team at the University of Oxford worked closely with the journal to retract and publish the new version of the study,  Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study. This collaboration ensured that the research findings were accurately represented, reinforcing trust in the evidence used to guide clinical decision making.

The updated analysis revealed a striking shift in findings. Expanding the study population from 64,000 to over 326,000 patients, the 2023 update found that 4.8% of those with unexpected weight loss were diagnosed with cancer within six months—compared to just 1.4% in the original 2020 results. These revised findings led to critical changes in clinical recommendations, now advising urgent cancer referrals for all men aged 50+, women aged 60+, and younger patients with specific symptoms. They include an increase in recognised clinical features associated with cancer in men (from 10 to 20) and women (from 11 to 17), improving diagnostic accuracy.  Recognising the significance of their updated results, Nicholson and his colleagues proactively approached The BMJ. 

 

“We found the journal very responsive to our approach for advice about what we should do next.”

Brian D Nicholson
Academic Clinical Lecturer, Associate Professor, and General Practitioner, speaking to Retraction Watch, BMJ [Group], doing the right thing 

This case exemplifies The BMJ’s leadership in fostering trust, accountability, and the highest standards of research, setting a benchmark for evidence-based improvements in patient care. Through effective collaboration with authors, this approach has led to a shared success that ultimately serves the best interests of both patients and the public. 

At BMJ Group, retractions are considered by journal editors in cases of evidence of unreliable data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unethical research. We may consider an expression of concern notice if an article is under investigation. All retraction notices explain why the article was retracted. The retraction procedure depends on the publication stage of the article:

Online First publication
A new article version containing just the metadata will be posted, with a retraction note replacing the original text. A retraction notice will also be published in the next available print issue. The original text will remain accessible.

Publication in an issue or a continuous publication journal
A replacement version of the article containing just the metadata will be posted, with a retraction note replacing the original text. The PDF will be replaced with a version watermarked with “Retracted”, but the original text will remain accessible. A retraction notice will also be published in the next available print issue.

In rare cases, we may have to remove the original content for legal reasons. In such cases, we will leave the metadata (title and authors) and replace the text with a note saying the article has been removed for legal reasons. A retraction notice will also be published online and/or in print.

Retraction notices are indexed and linked to the original records in Medline and Web of Science.

Today, the world of science is not fair. We know that there are underrepresented groups in both science and publishing ^w1,w2 and inequalities are contributing to real disparities within our scientific communities.

We believe it is time for all journal editors to take action. We all must put equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) at the forefront of our agendas and encourage our colleagues to do the same. Only by leading from the top will you support others to also eradicate prejudice and discrimination. You can do this by making small but monumental changes, which will also help to protect the moral principles of your journal.

As one of the 30+ publisher signatories to the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing, BMJ Group continuously scrutinises our processes to minimise the apparent publishing biases – whilst recognising that there is so much more that we all need to do.

Where do journals and editors fit into the perpetuating cycle of social injustice?

Many of us might assume that there is little impact a journal editor can make on creating more diversity in research. When a manuscript has been submitted to a journal, the work has already been carried out.

Now is the time to move away from this line of thinking and instead consider the research-to-publication process as a cycle. What happens at the end of the cycle has as much impact on the start as it does on the outcome.

Take, for instance, the traditional “publish or perish” nature of STEM publishing: an individual’s publication rate is likely to affect their career progression ^w3 and studies have shown that there is a disproportionately higher rejection rate for authors from underrepresented groups.^{w2, w4,w5}

This is largely attributed to unconscious bias in the decision making and peer review processes^w6 – both areas in which are directly within the journals and editors sphere of influence.

By not stepping in from the start, as a journal editor, you are contributing to social injustice through inaction.

“I am reaching out because, we have continuously come back to your page on ‘Five things you should do as a journal editor to support social justice’ – particularly the graphic on the cycle of injustice. This visual
is quite impactful and will aid in our efforts for editors to understand how their journal strategies and decisions affect the broader research
ecosystem.””

Shaina Lange
Shaina Lange, Publishing Integrity Office Global Editorial Operations, Journals Publishing Group, American Chemical Society