Ethics & Scientific Publishing

In academia and research, publishing peer reviewed articles is often seen as a key driver for scientific progress and, lets be honest, career development (and, in my own career too, often job security). Publication enables the dissemination of knowledge, often fosters collaboration and drives innovation. However, scientific publishing is facing growing scrutiny over ethical challenges that threaten the integrity, accessibility and fairness of the process. From issues surrounding authorship and peer review to the rise of ‘predatory’ journals, the ethical landscape of scientific publishing demands urgent attention.

The pressure to "publish or perish" in academia exacerbates these ethical problems and often there is a perception that quantity outweighs quality in terms of publications. Indeed, publication rates have grown exponentially over recent years. In a recent paper ‘The strain on scientific publishing’ the authors reported a 47% increase in the number of peer-reviewed journals in 2022 compared with 2016. This number far outstripping an increase in scientists over this same period seems unsustainable, but the publication numbers keep rising. Therefore, it seems unsurprising that people are feeling the pressure to maintain their outputs.

Mostly, the publication rates are down to the drive and determination of individuals and groups of scientists working to deliver often mind-boggling levels of data. However, just a quick look at a site, such as retraction watch and it seems that, for some, the pressure to publish high quality ‘research’ leads to scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification.

We rely, in the main, on the peer review process to ensure the quality and veracity of publications. While it is often considered the gold standard for ensuring the quality of scientific publications, it’s not without its flaws. These issues have been exacerbated by the sheer volume of articles potential reviewers are asked to review. From my own experience, it is not unusual to get requests in the double figures week after week and I regularly hear stories of editors requesting fifty or more academics to review a single paper!
Therefore, it seems a gift if we as editors are provided with a list of recommended reviewers for an article that accept the invitation to review a manuscript. But is it always? A recent article in Science highlights a hitherto hidden problem: A scientist’s name had been used by others to produce a number of fake peer reviews for a single publication. How was this done? Quite easily, the email address provided for the researcher named in the recommendation was fake. From this single case, 22 papers have already been retracted. It appears that this is now an increasing problem and one that editors and publishers are becoming more aware of.

But we must ask ourselves, how did we get here and where does this end? It could be argued there have always been a few people who want to cheat the system and this is a minority. However, is the current publication model really sustainable? Looking at it and the feedback I get from those involved, much of it is cracking under the unrelenting strain. Could it be that the system really could do with a reboot? As an editor, a reviewer and a published scientist, I don’t have the answers, perhaps I’m too close and wedded to the existing system but change needs to happen.

By Nick Wheelhouse, Ediburgh Napier University