Abstract

One of the aspects of post-publication peer review that is difficult for reputable journals or publishers to accept is that it may reveal flaws in their oft-claimed resilient peer review and efficient editorial management. Prospective authors are frequently sold a brand-associated image of a fail-safe process, rigorous editorial handling, and stringent peer review. Yet, in reality, a sector of the published literature that has passed through claimed rigorous screening may still be flawed and contain errors, while some of the peer-reviewed literature is the product of fraud or misconduct. Even top-ranked journals, in terms of journal-based metrics such as the Clarivate Analytics’ journal impact factor, or those that are indexed or hosted on platforms like PubMed, Scopus or Web of Science, have published papers with associated errata or retractions. In such journals, it is possible that erroneous literature has yet to be detected. This paper argues that publishers draw benefit in the form of metrics-based recognition, such as citations to erroneous or retracted papers, or financial reward, either as subscription fees or in the form of article processing charges, neither of which is refunded when a peer-reviewed academic paper is retracted. Knowing that peer review and editorial decisions can be imperfect, publishers have a moral responsibility of toning down claims of the excellence or perfection of peer review when advertising their journals, or they should conduct a full-scale post-publication peer review of their journals’ entire collection to prove it. In turn, academics need to be more proactive in the publishing ecosystem, seeking to correct the literature when errors are found, and not be afraid to call out editors or publishers that defy their claimed academic or ethical excellence.

Highlights

  • In June 2020, two prestigious medical journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), decided to retract two major papers related to the treatment of COVID-19 upon detection of fraudulent data (Piller & Servick, 2020)

  • The presence of low-quality scientific articles in the literature is compounded by continued citations, even post-retraction citations, to articles that were already withdrawn (Bar-Ilan & Halevi, 2017)

  • Wilson offered an overview of the forms of academic fraud and misconduct, broadly characterizing them as being (1) internal, i.e., researcher-driven, either through fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, or (2) external, i.e., publisher- or organization-driven through predatory practices, hoaxes and forgeries

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In June 2020, two prestigious medical journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), decided to retract two major papers related to the treatment of COVID-19 upon detection of fraudulent data (Piller & Servick, 2020). Wilson offered an overview of the forms of academic fraud and misconduct, broadly characterizing them as being (1) internal, i.e., researcher-driven, either through fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, or (2) external, i.e., publisher- or organization-driven through predatory practices, hoaxes and forgeries. Journal editors are often hesitant in responding to a retraction request because of the amount of work that would involve, such as launching an investigation to confirm the errors or misconduct in the requested paper (Vuong, 2020). They and their journal would be directly implicated in quality oversight during peer review, so there is an active lack of incentives to correct the literature. Wilson (2020) provides a wider and more in-depth discussion about the issue of fraud in academic publishing

Academic Publishing is More Than a Binary Classification
Conventional Publishing Practices
Emerging Publishing Practices
Findings
What Measures Should be Put in Place Going Forward?
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call