{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T06:51:21Z","timestamp":1791269481404,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":5,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]],"date-time":"2026-10-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1791158400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]],"date-time":"2026-10-05T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1791158400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Arch Toxicol"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>\n                    The credibility of scientific journals is often attributed to rigorous peer review and editorial independence. In reality, however, scientific publishing, like every human institution, is shaped by competing interests, institutional incentives, and errors of judgment. Its credibility therefore depends less on the presumed virtues of authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers than on transparent procedures, clearly defined responsibilities, and institutional arrangements that make departures from established standards visible and open to scientific scrutiny. This Editorial examines a revealing recent case in which publication of a Guest Editorial that had successfully completed the established editorial procedures of\n                    <jats:italic>Archives of Toxicology<\/jats:italic>\n                    was ultimately prevented by the Publisher. Rather than discussing the scientific merits of the underlying manuscript, the present analysis focuses on how the publication decision changed after the manuscript had already been formally accepted. The documented events show how the publication process was progressively compromised through a succession of additional procedural requirements, each introduced only after the preceding requirement had been fulfilled. As a consequence, publication no longer depended on completion of the journal\u2019s published editorial process but on successive interventions outside that process. The case illustrates that transparent editorial procedures alone are insufficient to safeguard editorial integrity. Effective institutional self-correction requires a second, equally important safeguard: the guaranteed possibility that alleged departures from editorial procedures can themselves be subjected to unobstructed public scientific scrutiny through mechanisms such as Commentaries or Opinion Articles. In the present case, both safeguards were compromised simultaneously. The established editorial procedures were progressively displaced, while the very mechanism intended to permit public examination of alleged procedural failures was itself prevented from operating. The present analysis argues that departures from editorial procedures are not corrected automatically. They become self-correcting only when independent publication pathways remain available in which transparent editorial governance is preserved. The long-term credibility of scientific publishing therefore rests not primarily on confidence in individuals but on institutional structures that make procedural departures visible, increase the expected cost of abusing institutional power, and guarantee that alleged failures of governance can themselves be subjected to public scientific scrutiny. Transparency without the guaranteed possibility of such scrutiny remains incomplete.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]],"date-time":"2026-10-05T18:02:35Z","timestamp":1791223355000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Publisher intervention in editorial decision-making: when established editorial procedures no longer determine publication decisions"],"prefix":"10.1007","author":[{"given":"Jan G.","family":"Hengstler","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]]},"reference":[{"key":"4560_CR1","first-page":"1107","volume":"25","author":"CJ Borgert","year":"2026","unstructured":"Borgert CJ, Mohammad A, Ansell JM (2026) Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed. EXCLI J 25:1107\u20131116","journal-title":"EXCLI J"},{"key":"4560_CR2","unstructured":"Cicero, In Verrem, Actio Prima, 70 BC, Nihil esse tam sanctum quod non violari, nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit"},{"issue":"25","key":"4560_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"846","DOI":"10.17179\/excli2026-9618","volume":"19","author":"A Sachinidis","year":"2026","unstructured":"Sachinidis A, Albrecht W, Hengstler JG (2026) Structured, evidence-based debate in science: introducing a new forum. EXCLI J 19(25):846\u2013847. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.17179\/excli2026-9618","journal-title":"EXCLI J"},{"issue":"2","key":"4560_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"117","DOI":"10.1006\/rtph.1999.1371","volume":"31","author":"GM Williams","year":"2000","unstructured":"Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC (2000) Retracted: safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 31(2):117\u2013165. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1006\/rtph.1999.1371","journal-title":"Regul Toxicol Pharmacol"},{"key":"4560_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","unstructured":"Williams GM, Kroes R, Munro IC (2025) Retraction notice to \u201cSafety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans\u201d [Regul. Toxicol. Pharm. 31 (2000) 117\u2013165]. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 4: 106006. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.yrtph.2025.106006","DOI":"10.1016\/j.yrtph.2025.106006"}],"container-title":["Archives of Toxicology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T06:03:03Z","timestamp":1791266583000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]]},"references-count":5,"alternative-id":["4560"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00204-026-04560-3","relation":{},"ISSN":["0340-5761","1432-0738"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0340-5761","type":"print"},{"value":"1432-0738","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]]},"assertion":[{"value":"4 August 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"16 September 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"5 October 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"The author is Editor of\n                      Archives of Toxicology\n                      and\n                      EXCLI Journal\n                      and serves on the editorial boards of several other scientific journals. He has no financial, professional, or consulting relationships with organizations having a commercial interest in glyphosate or glyphosate-containing products and has not participated in regulatory or legal proceedings concerning glyphosate.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Conflict of interest","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"All factual statements concerning the editorial process described in this Editorial are based on contemporaneous documentary records, including e-mail correspondence, editorial correspondence, publisher communications, reviewer reports, and legal documents. Owing to confidentiality obligations affecting some of these materials, they are not reproduced here. The corresponding documentation is available to the Editors and will be made available to appropriate parties, where legally permissible.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Consent for publication","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}]}}