Research publishing is changing, and quickly. New models of peer review are emerging and now coexist, with new business models to support them (like the Projekt DEAL and Wiley announcement [1]). This means that complex choices characterize even the most traditional and conservative things in research publishing, like peer review. This article raises questions about how researchers and publishers, working in the right sorts of collaboration, can maintain essential aspects of quality -namely

more »

... rity and ethics. It discusses how publishers can deliver better peer review [2] and, together, how they can find new kinds of value for researchers. Two essential aspects of quality: Integrity and ethics Peer review, as part of the peer reviewed publishing process [3], is how way we manage two essential aspects of quality in research and research publishing: Integrity, and ethics. By integrity, we mean the reliability, reproducibility [4], trustworthiness and usefulness of published research. By ethics we mean the regulated ethical requirements for doing research (human and animal research in particular [5,6]), as well as equally important community-led obligations (like authorship practices [7]), and how these are reflected and reported in published research. How are we doing with that? Often, people look to retractions as a marker for quality in research integrity and publishing ethics. Retractions [8], for the uninitiated, are formal withdrawals of research articles, published when something is significantly wrong with the integrity or the ethics a piece of research. Retractions can be for honest errors [9], or for research misconduct [10], or for something in-between [11] . Jeffrey Brainard published an analysis of records from the world's largest retraction database, titled rethinking retractions in Science