Taylor & Francis has launched an investigation into allegations of ghostwriting involving two papers published in its journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology that examine the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup. The probe follows recent revelations from court documents and builds on prior scrutiny of industry influence in academic publishing on this topic.
Background on Glyphosate Safety Debates and Academic Publishing Concerns
Glyphosate is one of the most commonly applied herbicides globally, used extensively in agriculture to control weeds. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have long maintained that it is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans at typical exposure levels. In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as probably carcinogenic to humans in 2015. These differing assessments have fueled ongoing scientific, regulatory, and legal discussions worldwide.
Academic journals play a central role in shaping these debates by publishing peer-reviewed reviews and studies that regulators and courts often reference. Concerns arise when undisclosed industry involvement, including ghostwriting where company employees draft content attributed to independent academics, potentially undermines the perceived objectivity of such work. Ghostwriting in this context refers to situations where individuals not listed as authors contribute substantially to the writing without proper disclosure.
The Recent Taylor & Francis Investigation
On June 15, 2026, Retraction Watch reported that Taylor & Francis is examining two specific papers in Critical Reviews in Toxicology. One is a 2015 review led by Helmut Greim of the Technical University of Munich. The other is a 2013 paper co-authored by Larry Kier and David Kirkland. Both papers support assessments of glyphosate safety and have been cited in regulatory contexts.
A Taylor & Francis spokesperson stated that the publisher recently received information prompting the review by its publishing ethics and integrity team. The company emphasized its commitment to addressing concerns promptly while following established protocols, without providing further details during the active investigation.
Historical Context from the Monsanto Papers
The allegations trace back to internal documents from Monsanto, released during 2017 litigation over claims that glyphosate exposure caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These “Monsanto Papers” included emails suggesting company employees drafted or heavily influenced papers while external scientists provided names and edits for attribution. One email referenced handling prior work similarly to the 2000 Williams, Kroes, and Munro paper, proposing to add names like Greim, Kier, or Kirkland while keeping costs low through internal drafting.
Critics argue such practices compromise research integrity by obscuring conflicts of interest and corporate influence. Supporters of the papers maintain that listed authors retained full responsibility and that peer review ensured scientific rigor.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Details of the Papers Under Scrutiny
The 2015 Greim-led paper evaluates carcinogenic potential using rodent tumor data from multiple studies, concluding no clear link to cancer under relevant conditions. Co-authors included industry-linked researchers, with some disclosures present. The 2013 Kier and Kirkland paper focuses on genotoxicity aspects of glyphosate and formulations.
Researchers Alexander Kaurov, Jason MacLean, and Naomi Oreskes have advocated for retractions or further action, highlighting the papers’ influence on regulatory decisions. They note citations in EPA documents and argue that reliance on these works may have skewed evaluations of cancer risks.
Related Prior Cases and Retractions
This investigation follows the December 2025 retraction of a highly cited 2000 review paper in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (an Elsevier journal). That paper, by Gary Williams and colleagues, concluded Roundup posed no health risks under expected use conditions. Retraction notices cited undisclosed ghostwriting and other ethical issues based on the same court documents.
Earlier, Taylor & Francis issued an expression of concern regarding a 2016 supplemental issue in Critical Reviews in Toxicology on glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, acknowledging issues with disclosures around Monsanto’s involvement while stopping short of full retraction at that time.
Stakeholder Perspectives
Authors associated with the papers under review have defended their work. Christian Strupp, a co-author on the Greim paper, affirmed the publication’s scientific integrity following peer review. David Kirkland stated the 2013 paper was not ghostwritten and emphasized independent review processes.
Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, described the allegations as unfounded attempts to discredit sound science, noting that some industry personnel were properly listed as co-authors where applicable. Critics, including plaintiff experts in related litigation, contend that even partial involvement without full transparency affects credibility.
Publishing ethics experts point to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, which recommend retractions or corrections for undisclosed authorship contributions that constitute misconduct.
Implications for Scientific Integrity and Regulation
These developments underscore challenges in maintaining independence in industry-funded or influenced research. Highly cited papers can shape regulatory approvals, risk assessments, and even public discourse for years. Undisclosed ghostwriting may lead to over-reliance on potentially biased interpretations, affecting policy decisions on pesticide use that impact agriculture, environment, and public health globally.
For academic institutions and researchers, the cases highlight the importance of robust conflict-of-interest disclosures and transparent authorship criteria. Journals face pressure to strengthen verification processes amid increasing scrutiny of research reproducibility and integrity.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Broader Trends in Academic Publishing Ethics
Ghostwriting concerns extend beyond this case to other fields where corporate interests intersect with science. Publishers like Taylor & Francis have policies aligned with COPE standards, including investigations into authorship disputes and potential retractions when warranted. Recent years have seen increased attention to these issues, with tools and guidelines emerging to detect undue influence.
Universities and research bodies are responding by enhancing training on publication ethics for faculty and students, particularly in toxicology, environmental science, and related disciplines.
Future Outlook and Recommendations
As the Taylor & Francis investigation proceeds, outcomes could include expressions of concern, corrections, or retractions, depending on findings. Such actions may prompt re-evaluations of glyphosate-related regulations and encourage greater transparency across the publishing landscape.
Stakeholders recommend clearer authorship guidelines, mandatory detailed contribution statements, and independent audits for high-stakes reviews. These steps could help restore trust in scientific literature used for critical decisions.
Researchers and institutions seeking resources on ethical publishing practices can explore opportunities in academic roles focused on research integrity through platforms like academic job listings.
