The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions

Research integrity is not negotiable, but we regularly observe research misconduct, and journals are victims or guilty. journals do not have the objective to assess research integrity: that's the Institutions' roles. Journals discover research misconduct when articles are reviewed (an editor or a reviewer detect signals), or after the article's publication when a reader or a whistleblower call the journal. The editors and reviewers' research misconduct are less described and not publicized in the medias. The peer-review system is criticised. If authors were fair-play, and reviews well done, the journals should not publish articles containing false data. The opponents to the peer-review system propose no alternatives to replace it. The anonymous peer reviews are questioned: it has never been proved that quality of anonymous reading was better than quality of open reading. The Open Access facilitated the creation of many journals. Some journals are excellent and got on impact factor; most journals have a poor quality and don't follow the publications ethics standards. When errors and fraud are identified, journals can publish 3 statements: erratum for errors, expression of concern for errors or fraud when evidence is not established, and retraction when evidence is obvious.