Some quotes from this damning paper. Thanks, Jelena Brankovic, for pointing it out. π
"About a quarter of citations in top journals turn out to be wrong (Smith and Cumberledge, 2020); and authors are unfamiliar with something like half the works they cite (Teplitskiy et al., 2018)." π
"Yet, the JIF remains the measure of choice, satisfying the demand of university managers for a universal quality measure that gives them control of the academic workforce while requiring no understanding at all of what is being measured (Hallonsten, 2021)" π
"The measures of performance quickly come to bear no relationship at all to actual performance and become a measure of gam- ing proficiency instead (Fire and Guestrin, 2019)." π
For decades, gaming authors have appreciated that they should avoid writing abt anything significant:
They should: (1) not pick an important problem, (2) not challenge existing beliefs
π
They should: (1) not pick an important problem, (2) not challenge existing beliefs
π
,(3) not obtain surprising results, (4) not use simple methods, (5) not provide full disclosure, and (6) not write clearly (Armstrong, 1982: 197). π
"The latest research and bright new ideas are to be avoided because they link to little else and this makes articles difficult to cite." π
It has been calculated that an article in a top journal is worth more than Β£100,000 to its authorβs institution over 6years, largely through boosting the institutionβs ranking (Hussain, 2011). π
It follows that universities commonly pay successful authors a publication bounty. A survey of 30 countries calculates an average 22% increase in submissions as a result of offering bonuses π
A major requirement for a high JIF is just that β a high JIF. The higher a journalβs impact factor, the more articles it attracts from the best-known authors, the more citations their articles receive and the more these contribute to the journalβs impact factor π
The gaming techniques of authors can be as unsophisticated as mutual citation agreements, & authors repeatedly downloading their own articles. Citing as much as possible from the journal to which the author is submitting. Preprints hugely increase the citation of an article π
More advanced gaming includes avoiding long titles and titles with hyphens, both of which discourage citation. Titles with question marks, colons and any sort of geographical limitation are also to be avoided π
Some gaming techniques can be extraordinarily elaborate (Baker, 2020): even the best time of day to submit articles can be calculated (McGee et al., 2022). π
With gaming, neither an author nor article needs to exist to be highly ranked. Similarly, the institutional affiliation of authors can impress the editorial team charged with desk-rejecting submissions; fictional authors make checking almost impossible & are preferred π
Self-citation is responsible for more than half an articleβs citation after 10years, and those who fail to exploit the tactic put themselves at a major competitive disadvantage. π
The more competitive is publication in top journals, the more gaming is seen as a legitimate instrument of this competition, one untrammeled by the numerous concerns about fairness that beset peer review π
It has become common for the referee to be seen, and to see herself, as part of an editorial team striving to increase journal impact factor, as serving the journal or even the publisher rather than some outdated notion of an invisible college of scholars.π
Growing reluctance to referee has driven some academic publishers to require those who submit an article to a journal to referee for that journal, a tactic that enrolled referees rather than relevant expertise.π
"Conscientious referees find their popularity with editors increasing and more and more manuscripts landing on their desks long after their own research has begun to suffer, until they cannot even cope with their refereeing work efficiently. π
It is clear that the reinforcement structure of science punishes virtuous behavior and rewards sloppy, superficial, casual, thoughtless, insensitive, inefficient, and therefore unreliable refereeing".(Colman, 1991: 141β142)
Pressure to publish can lead to authors seeing the referee as simply an obstacle to publication, one to be overcome at any cost. So desperate are authors to publish that many willingly make whatever changes to articles referees want, no matter how wrong they know these to beπ
"in the boom years after the second world war, entrepreneurs built fortunes by taking publishing out of the hands of scientists and expanding the business on a previously unimaginable scale. And no one was more transformative and ingenious than Robert Maxwell, π
who turned scientific journals into a spectacular money-making machine that bankrolled his rise in British society. (Buranyi, 2017)π
(contrary to an idealized view of peer review), in reality, most articles cascade into publication somewhere whatever the referee recommends (Kravitz
et al., 2010). π
et al., 2010). π
All that really separates a good article from a bad one is the JIF of the journal in which it is published. This and the suitability of the authorβs article are determined largely by gaming. π
In medicine, peer review serves less to guarantee academic standards than to make even the most egregious publishing practices look respectable π
Corruption in medical publishing is sanitized β sanctified even β by peer review. π
"Corporate interests have fused with academic medicine to create an unhealthy alliance that works against objective reporting of clinical research& gets its prodigal experts into leading roles in journals, medical associations and non-profit research organizations (Fava, 2002)"π
As the editor of the Lancet puts it, β[medical] journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industryβ (Horton, 2004).π
Drug companies are happy to assist academics in writing articles: "Up to 75% of the papers on randomized controlled trials on therapeutic agents appearing in major journals may now be ghost written. π
Second, in terms of citation rates, the most cited papers in therapeutics are now likely to be ghost written. Third, new methods of authorship appear to lead to an omission of negative data on the hazards of therapeutic agents." π
Open access has blurred the distinction between established and predatory journals (...) All boast rigorous peer review, but when John Bohannon (2013) submitted a nonsense article on the use of lichen to cure cancer, it survived peer review in journals of both sorts. π
Ghost writers prepare drafts, journals are targeted and influential academics β known as key opinion leaders (KOLs) β are selected to front these articles π
Authors are generally not selected from the pool of favored KOLs until after articles have been written for them. π
An honorary author (also known as a guest author) may be named as an articleβs author despite making no substantial contribution to the article, a practice referred to as hat tipping or gift authorship (Moffatt, 2011) π
An investigation into articles published in top medical journals as a whole found 8% ghost written and hat tipping in 21% (Wislar et al., 2011). π
Articles from medical communications companies are carefully crafted to satisfy not just the require- ments of pharmaceutical patrons, but also those of top journals π
They become much cited not only because they are published in top journals, but also because the MCC games by profuse citation of its own articles in other articles it creates π
And inasmuch as journal editors welcome a boost to their impact factor, they particu- larly welcome MCC articles π
While gaming in other disciplines is practiced largely by individuals for their own personal benefit (Spence, 2019), gaming in medical publishing is professional and carried out on an industrial scale. π
In a tactic akin to saturation bombing, the MCC ensures that interlinked journals all publish articles with the same positive, unquestioning message. π
Having secured journal publication of an article supportive of its product, a pharma- ceutical company can be expected to return the favor, perhaps by purchasing thousands of reprints β nominally to distribute to customers, but actually to support the journal. π
On one occasion, the New England Journal of Medicine produced nearly a million reprints of an article supportive of Vioxx, a new drug from Merck [the paper ended up being seriously flawed but was not retracted] π
(this paper is crazy! I will end up copy/pasting the whole thing!) π
In health sciences, the role of peer review is to support established commercial and academic interests rather than challenge them. π
He then goes on to cite the case of an article critical of the roundup pesticide that was retracted thanks to a PR campaign orchestrated by the chief editor of the journal to support Monsanto (paper had been accepted by an AE). π
If you want to go down this rabbit hole, you'll find a description of this story here: πenveurope.springeropen.com
With no guaranteed access to an articleβs research data and no reliable knowledge of who conducted the research or who paid for it, the referee is poorly placed to spot even the most egregious malpractice.π
Authorship, rather than citation, is at the heart of corruption in medical publishing. Fong and Wilhite (2017) disclose just how fungible academic authorship in other disciplines has become: in medicine, it has been negotiable for decades. π
best quote of the paper (on authorship): Medicine has established conventions of precedence as mysterious to the outside world as the positioning of the nobility at a Ruritanian banquet. π
Author lists have lengthened to include those who have contributed anything at all to a research project β emptying wastepaper baskets and making tea will do. About a quarter of authors in one survey had not done even that much (Shapiro et al., 1994)π
In the uncompromising opinion of medicineβs senior editors, the peer review of practice has done nothing in decades to prevent the publication of worthless articles (Altman, 1994; Smith, 2014) π
Brokers in Russia and China (and no doubt elsewhere) sell authorship of articles about to be published, priced in part accord- ing to the prestige value attached to the journal (assessed by JIF) π
Quote from a company selling authorship: "an author with a high H index writes an article to submit to a quality journal; one place is assigned to him; the remaining 2β3 places in the article are for sale. The payment is divided among the journal, the author, and us." π
Hvistendahl (2013) gives the example of an article newly accepted by Elsevierβs International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology. The broker was able to sell a co-first author slot for US$14,800 as well as three lesser β and cheaper β slots. π
Nearly 40% of even the prestigious Cochrane Reviews are found to have honorary authors and a further 9% ghost authors π
In medicine, even refereesβ reports can be ghost-written π
Many editors of medical journals have no idea who actually wrote the articles they publish. Even the authors named on the articles may not know who wrote them π
Far from being the guardian of scholarship in medicine, peer review is presiding over its collapse. Other disciplines would do well to take heed. /The End
And of course, given that this article is peer-reviewed, I fully trust it.
This statement seems debatable π
Not sure I agree with this. In psychology there is more of a bias towards novelty (at the expense of reproducibility).
Although this paper does reveal some hard truths about the publishing system, especially in the medical sciences, it departs in several ways from my experience π
As a social psychologist. Most of the reviews I receive are actually very thorough and professional and, to some extent, preserve quality. As an author, I am concerned about the very high rejection rate more than about the quality of the reviews (usually quite good). π
While the JIF matters (to some extent), my impression is that there is a hierarchy of journals in social psych (at least the top ones) that is little altered by variations in their respective JIFs. π
Authorship without or with little contribution is possible and does happen (although contrary to ethical rules). In my experience, it is not the norm at all. π
Now, it is true that you can (almost always) find a home for your paper after multiple rejections. This makes the journal where it was published a relatively useful heuristic to evaluate its quality. π
While there has been scientific fraud, I haven't heard of authorships being sold in my field or of ghosting. π
...so, although there are valid concerns about the "gamification" of publication, I view this paper mainly as a cautionary tale (rather than a description of what is already happening in my field).
Loading suggestions...