Preface – ‘Publication pollution’

Abstract

Dear Readers, eXPRESS Polymer Letters has entered its sixth volume, with an impact factor of 1.575, which is about 10% higher than last year. Assessing the past 5 years, statistically speaking 466 full research papers and 60 short editorial papers presenting actual trends and novelties have been published so far. International reputation and recognition of the journal increases year by year, with a growing number of citations and publication downloads. In eXPRESS Polymer Letters, despite its young age, there have already been published certain papers that reached thousands of downloads and over 50 citations in the Web of Science. These remarkable results are due to the strict peer reviewing process of the journal that results in a rejection rate of almost 80%. However, we cannot ignore the negative tendencies that seem to escalate nowadays, which can be divided into three main groups. Firstly, owing to the ‘publication pressure’, weak, poor quality manuscripts are flooding the editorial offices. This is simply denoted as ‘publication pollution’ by us, that only causes excess work to the editors, but does not contribute to the state-of-knowledge at all. The second, even worse phenomenon that also has its roots in the ‘publication pressure’ is the parallel publication of identical (or minimally modified) results in various journals, which raises a very serious ethical problem in science. It is a huge responsibility for academic leaders, research team leaders and PhD supervisors to prevent publication of results that have already been submitted or accepted elsewhere or perhaps even appeared in another journal. This ‘cloning’ of publications may provide short term advantages for the authors as they will have improved statistics and higher cumulative impact factor, but in the long run such unethical behaviour is sooner or later revealed, and the journals will no longer accept any publication by the authors or by their institutions involved. This kind of paper multiplication increases ‘publication pollution’ again, and does not contribute to a deeper scientific knowledge. The third, and most serious, problem is plagiarism that raises questions falling under the category of criminal law, as it may constitute crime. To present other people’s results as if they were one’s own without indicating the source is a reprehensible and despicable act. Based on the above we consider it important to act together against such unethical behaviour of some authors, and for the sake of sustainable development all actors of education, research, development and innovation sites should actively participate to prevent ‘publication pollution’. Finally, we are grateful for the painstaking work of our authors and referees, and in the name of the editor-in-chief, the international advisory board and the local editorial team, the editor wishes you a lot of success in year 2012. Sincerely yours,