Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Brian Owens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q659

2024-03-27

BMJ

Abstract:Frontiers, like other for-profit open access publishers, has struggled with a perception it has low editorial standards and weak peer review. But is that true? Brian Owens reports

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Comparative Study on Characteristics of Retracted Publications Across Different Open Access Levels

Er-Te Zheng,Hui-Zhen Fu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2024-0010

2024-01-01

Journal of Data and Information Science

Abstract:Purpose Recently, global science has shown an increasing open trend, however, the characteristics of research integrity of open access (OA) publications have rarely been studied. The aim of this study is to compare the characteristics of retracted articles across different OA levels and discover whether OA level influences the characteristics of retracted articles. Design/methodology/approach The research conducted an analysis of 6,005 retracted publications between 2001 and 2020 from the Web of Science and Retraction Watch databases. These publications were categorized based on their OA levels, including Gold OA, Green OA, and non-OA. The study explored retraction rates, time lags and reasons within these categories. Findings The findings of this research revealed distinct patterns in retraction rates among different OA levels. Publications with Gold OA demonstrated the highest retraction rate, followed by Green OA and non-OA. A comparison of retraction reasons between Gold OA and non-OA categories indicated similar proportions, while Green OA exhibited a higher proportion due to falsification and manipulation issues, along with a lower occurrence of plagiarism and authorship issues. The retraction time lag was shortest for Gold OA, followed by non-OA, and longest for Green OA. The prolonged retraction time for Green OA could be attributed to an atypical distribution of retraction reasons. Research limitations There is no exploration of a wider range of OA levels, such as Hybrid OA and Bronze OA. Practical implications The outcomes of this study suggest the need for increased attention to research integrity within the OA publications. The occurrences of falsification, manipulation, and ethical concerns within Green OA publications warrant attention from the scientific community. Originality/value This study contributes to the understanding of research integrity in the realm of OA publications, shedding light on retraction patterns and reasons across different OA levels.
"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.604934

2024-07-26

Abstract:Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Biology
'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the "big five" and the risks for research integrity

David Mills,Sefika Mertkan,Gulen Onurkan Aliusta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2374567

2024-07-07

Abstract:The exponential growth of MDPI and Frontiers over the last decade has been powered by their extensive use of special issues. The "special issue-ization" of journal publishing has been particularly associated with new publishers and seen as potentially "questionable." Through an extended case-study analysis of three journals owned by one of the "big five" commercial publishers, this paper explores the risks that this growing use of special issues presents to research integrity. All three case-study journals show sudden and marked changes in their publication patterns. An analysis of special issue editorials and retraction notes was used to determine the specifics of special issues and reasons for retractions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Findings suggest that these commercial publishers are also promoting special issues and that article retractions are often connected to guest editor manipulation. This underlies the threat that "special issue-ization" presents to research integrity. It highlights the risks posed by the guest editor model, and the importance of extending this analysis to long-existing commercial publishers. The paper emphasizes the need for an in-depth examination of the underlying structures and political economy of science, and a discussion of the rise of gaming and manipulation within higher education systems.
Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

Karen Shashok

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.02461

2017-01-10

Abstract:This article offers a personal perspective on the current state of academic publishing, and posits that the scientific community is beset with journals that contribute little valuable knowledge, overload the community's capacity for high-quality peer review, and waste resources. Open access publishing can offer solutions that benefit researchers and other information users, as well as institutions and funders, but commercial journal publishers have influenced open access policies and practices in ways that favor their economic interests over those of other stakeholders in knowledge creation and sharing. One way to free research from constraints on access is the diamond route of open access publishing, in which institutions and funders that produce new knowledge reclaim responsibility for publication via institutional journals or other open platforms. I argue that research journals (especially those published for profit) may no longer be fit for purpose, and hope that readers will consider whether the time has come to put responsibility for publishing back into the hands of researchers and their institutions. The potential advantages and challenges involved in a shift away from for-profit journals in favor of institutional open access publishing are explored.

Digital Libraries,Computers and Society
The oligopoly of academic publishers persists in exclusive database

Simon van Bellen,Juan Pablo Alperin,Vincent Larivière

2024-06-26

Abstract:Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the 'oligopoly' of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions' and OpenAlex' inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.

Digital Libraries
Views of a non-probability sample of corresponding authors with retracted publications in biomedical fields about the impact of different types of retractions on researchers' careers

Mariana D Ribeiro,Sonia M R Vasconcelos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202420240038

2024-09-23

Abstract:Echoing Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang in their Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms, "great human enterprises must undergo periodic cycles of self-examination and renewal to maintain their vigor". Especially in the last decade, the research culture has undergone such cycles, partially driven by countercultural transformations that have been reshaping assumptions towards reward-deserving achievements. Addressing retractions is among the challenges in this culture. This work builds upon research carried out at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which explored the views of 224 reviewers serving on panels for the US National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, among others. We show results of a survey that add to our previous data. It was sent to a population of 1,089 corresponding authors affiliated with institutions from the 20 most productive countries in biomedical fields. We explored how corresponding authors of at least one retracted publication issued between 2013 and 2015 in biomedical journals envisioned the impact of different types of retractions on the careers of the first and corresponding authors. As such impact (if any) is not always immediate, we selected this time frame to ensure that potential respondents would have tangible post-retraction experience.
Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Serhat Kurt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150

2018-01-18

Learned Publishing

Abstract:This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK . Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency . Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.

information science & library science
Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

Yashendra Sethi,Oroshay Kaiwan,Giacomo Frati,Mariangela Peruzzi,Mattia Galli,Mario Gaudino,Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09343-1

Abstract:Introduction: The escalating trend of academic article retractions over the last decades raises concerns about scientific integrity, but heterogeneity in retractions and reasons for them pose a major challenge. We aimed to comprehensively overview systematic reviews focusing on retractions in the biomedical literature. Evidence acquisition: We abstracted salient features and bibliometric details from shortlisted articles. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for validity appraisal. Evidence synthesis: A total of 11 reviews were included, published between 2016 and 2023, and reporting on a total of 1851 retracted studies. Several major reasons for retractions were identified, spanning both misconduct (e.g., falsification, duplication, plagiarism) and non-misconduct issues (e.g., unreliable data, publishing problems). Correlates include author-related factors (number of authors, nationality) and journal-related factors (impact factor), with repeat offenders contributing significantly. Impacts of retractions is profound, affecting scholarly credibility, public trust, and resource utilization. Conclusions: In order to prevent retractions and amend their adverse effects, rigorous and transparent reporting standards, enhanced training in research ethics, strengthened peer review processes, and the establishment of collaborative and integrated research integrity offices are proposed.
Reliability of the primary scientific literature

A. Abeysekera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991

2024-01-02

Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka

Abstract:The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.

multidisciplinary sciences
Retracted: The Spread, Rise, and Fall of University Students' Interconnected Internet Public Opinion in the Age of Big Data

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9785741

2023-08-11

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Abstract:This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: (1) Discrepancies in scope (2) Discrepancies in the description of the research reported (3) Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described (4) Inappropriate citations (5) Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article (6) Peer-review manipulation
Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Jorge Vasconez-Gonzalez,Juan S. Izquierdo-Condoy,Patricio Naranjo-Lara,Miguel Ángel Garcia-Bereguiain,Esteban Ortiz-Prado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424

IF: 3.9

2024-07-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the “publish or perish” culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of “paper mills,” and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

medicine, general & internal
An Analysis of the Impact of Gold Open Access Publications in Computer Science

Padraig Cunningham,Barry Smyth

2024-08-15

Abstract:There has been some concern about the impact of predatory publishers on scientific research for some time. Recently, publishers that might previously have been considered `predatory' have established their bona fides, at least to the extent that they are included in citation impact scores such as the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI). These are sometimes called `grey' publishers (MDPI, Frontiers, Hindawi). In this paper, we show that the citation landscape for these grey publications is significantly different from the mainstream landscape and that affording publications in these venues the same status as publications in mainstream journals may significantly distort metrics such as the FWCI.

Digital Libraries
The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

Manuel Tarrazo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v8n2p6

2023-09-25

International Research in Higher Education

Abstract:This note originated as part of the author’s regular research publishing activity. The author’s and colleagues’ experiences suggested broadening the usual examination of potential outlets. What we encountered was not “more of the same” from previous searches for outlets but very significant fundamental changes in the academic/scholarly publishing landscape. We first review the standard research process in the context of academic tenure and promotions. The we proceed to identify and enumerate potential publishing outlets, which we further classify into groups reflecting these critical differences meaningful for academic authors and their supervisors: nature of the outlet (for profit, not for profit; commercial, academic, and professional), open versus restricted access, peer-reviewing, and nature of the final article depository. What we consider the usual way to go about publishing shows many disruptions that do not benefit authors, such as major (commercial) publishers favoring a certain type of article and engaging in massive desk-rejection practices as well as less powerful publishers either closing down or imposing restrictions (words, reviewers), with serious unintended consequences. The traditional scholarly publishing model of requiring a given number of articles every x years may have become unsustainable, as it is extremely expensive and does not favor disinterested research. On the plus side, we find increasing publishing opportunities for authors, but these alternative opportunities might imply decisions that do not fit the traditional evaluation approach and might require innovative agreements between faculty and their academic supervisors.
Where have all the reviewers gone?

Rachel H. Ellaway

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10350-2

IF: 3.629

2024-06-14

Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract:In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem, and the prospects for sustaining communities of scholars with and without an ongoing commitment to peer review.

education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines,health care sciences & services
Rebels with a Cause? Supporting Library and Academic-led Open Access Publishing

Joe Deville,Jeroen Sondervan,Graham Stone,Sofie Wennström

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.10277

2019-09-26

Abstract:The authors, who all have experience with academic publishing, outline the landscape of new university and academic-led open access publishing, before discussing four interrelated sets of challenges which are often referred when questioning the viability of such publishing ventures. They are: (1) professionalism, (2) scale, (3) quality, and (4) discoverability & dissemination. The authors provide examples of how, albeit differing in size, form and ambition, these new presses are not just adhering to conventional publishing norms but often innovating in order to surpass them.
Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

Jeffrey Brainard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado2400

IF: 56.9

2024-01-26

Science

Abstract:Years after whistleblowers questioned nearly 300 papers, journals are slow to respond

multidisciplinary sciences
From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin,Michelle Riedlinger,Lauren A Maggio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.03.609638

2024-09-04

Abstract:This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists' awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists' perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.

Scientific Communication and Education
David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system

Aurore Receveur,Jonathan Bonfanti,Stephanie D'Agata,Andrew J. Helmstetter,Nikki A. Moore,Brunno F. Oliveira,Cathleen Petit‐Cailleux,Erica Rievrs Borges,Marieke Schultz,Aaron N. Sexton,Devi Veytia,Erica Rievrs Borges

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14395

IF: 11.274

2024-03-13

Ecology Letters

Abstract:Early career researchers are disproportionately impacted by the unethical publishing system; in this viewpoint, early career researchers in the fields of ecology and evolution propose actions for systemic change that can be implemented by researchers across all levels. The publish‐or‐perish culture in academia has catalysed the development of an unethical publishing system. This system is characterised by the proliferation of journals and publishers—unaffiliated with learned societies or universities—that maintain extremely large revenues and profit margins diverting funds away from the academic community. Early career researchers (ECRs) are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of this publishing system because of intersecting factors, including pressure to pursue high impact publications, rising publication costs and job insecurity. Moving towards a more ethical system requires that scientists advocate for structural change by making career choices that come with risks, many of which disproportionately impact ECRs. We illuminate major issues facing ECRs in Ecology and Evolution under the current publishing system, and propose a portfolio of actions to promote systemic change that can be implemented by ECRs and established researchers.

ecology
Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Kyle Siler,Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,Cassidy R. Sugimoto,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

IF: 64.8

2021-10-26

Nature

Abstract:To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings.

multidisciplinary sciences
Requiem for Impact Factors and High Publication Charges

Chris R. Triggle,Ross MacDonald,David J. Triggle,Donald Grierson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2021.1909481

2022-01-01

Abstract:Journal impact factors, publication charges and assessment of quality and accuracy of scientific research are critical for researchers, managers, funders, policy makers, and society. Editors and publishers compete for impact factor rankings, to demonstrate how important their journals are, and researchers strive to publish in perceived top journals, despite high publication and access charges. This raises questions of how top journals are identified, whether assessments of impacts are accurate and whether high publication charges borne by the research community are justified, bearing in mind that they also collectively provide free peer-review to the publishers. Although traditional journals accelerated peer review and publication during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprint servers made a greater impact with over 30,000 open access articles becoming available and accelerating a trend already seen in other fields of research. We review and comment on the advantages and disadvantages of a range of assessment methods and the way in which they are used by researchers, managers, employers and publishers. We argue that new approaches to assessment are required to provide a realistic and comprehensive measure of the value of research and journals and we support open access publishing at a modest, affordable price to benefit research producers and consumers.

Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

A Comparative Study on Characteristics of Retracted Publications Across Different Open Access Levels

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

'Special issue-ization' as a growth and revenue strategy: Reproduction by the "big five" and the risks for research integrity

Can scientists and their institutions become their own open access publishers?

The oligopoly of academic publishers persists in exclusive database

Views of a non-probability sample of corresponding authors with retracted publications in biomedical fields about the impact of different types of retractions on researchers' careers

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Exploring the landscape of academic retractions in medicine: a comprehensive umbrella review

Reliability of the primary scientific literature

Retracted: The Spread, Rise, and Fall of University Students' Interconnected Internet Public Opinion in the Age of Big Data

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

An Analysis of the Impact of Gold Open Access Publications in Computer Science

The Changing Landscape of Scholarly Publishing (in Finance) – An Author’s view

Where have all the reviewers gone?

Rebels with a Cause? Supporting Library and Academic-led Open Access Publishing

Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies

David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Requiem for Impact Factors and High Publication Charges