Publish Less, Publish Better: Scientists Call for Predatory Publishing Practices To Stop
A "perfect storm” has led to an explosion in journals employing predatory practices.
Scientific research thrives on rigor. Yet, in recent years, the research community has faced growing concerns over a decline in quality, fueled by the rise of journals whose business models prioritize quantity over quality. This phenomenon, often described as “predatory publishing”, threatens not only the integrity of science but also public trust in research and its ability to solve humanity’s most pressing challenges.
In a recent editorial published in Microbial Biotechnology, Professor Kenneth Timmis and colleagues issue a clear call to action: restore the science ethos, re-establish quality as the cornerstone of research publishing and work collectively to dismantle the systems that incentivize poor practice.
The paper proposes a solution that curbs the “pull” of predatory journals through accreditation and funding reform, and addresses the “push” of the “publish or perish” culture by reimagining research assessment and mentoring.
A leading figure in microbiology, Timmis has spent decades championing excellence in research and its dissemination. He was the founding editor and editor-in-chief of Environmental Microbiology, Environmental Microbiology Reports and Microbial Biotechnology, and is currently president of the European Academy of Microbiology.
Timmis joined Technology Networks for a conversation about the motivations behind this editorial, the risks posed by predatory publishing and the actions needed from researchers, institutions and funders to safeguard the future of scientific integrity.
Can you talk about the motivation behind the creation and publishing of this editorial?
Kenneth Timmis, PhD (KT):
Over the last decade or so, there has been a flood of new journals whose business model is the maximization of papers published and article processing charges (APCs) collected, irrespective of the quality, rigor and originality of the work reported.
Many recruit papers on topics unrelated to the journal’s title and scope. Most do not carry out rigorous peer review or, if they do, do not require authors to improve their papers in the manner demanded by the reviewers, and instead ask only for cosmetic changes for acceptance. The result is a progressive decline in the quality of research published and a lowering of research standards and the culture of rigor and originality.
This, in turn, will lessen public confidence in the research enterprise and its ability to address a wide range of problems and crises faced by humanity, to deliver solutions and to discover and exploit new opportunities.
Our motivation is to halt this decline and promote a restoration of the science ethos.
MC:
There are many issues associated with predatory practices. In your opinion, what is the most pressing?
KT:
The most pressing is the decline of the science ethos and the risk that young researchers will accept this as normal. Our task is to push back so that young researchers appreciate that research excellence requires a continual raising of the quality bar and is their future responsibility. Almost as important is the incredible increase in numbers of papers published, many of them inconsequential, with the result that it is impossible to keep up with relevant literature, and even to find the best papers because of the dilution effect.
Since this huge increase in publication activity also represents a huge increase in APCs paid from the public purse, it represents a significant waste of taxpayer revenues. We urgently need to adopt the mantra “publish less and publish better”.
MC:
Why do you think there has been an “explosion” in journals employing predatory practices?
KT:
The “explosion” is due to a “perfect storm”. Firstly, the perfectly reasonable push for open access (OA) publishing was not accompanied by appropriate quality control measures.
Secondly, the transition from subscription journals – the subscriptions of which came mostly from relatively modest library budgets and individuals – and the quality controls in place for selection of subscriptions, to OA journals financed by research funding agencies, made much larger budgets available for journals. Mandating grant recipients to publish in OA journals obliged funding agencies to cover these costs. This created huge financial opportunities for publishers.
Thirdly, the academic research ecosystem has increasingly adopted a metric-driven system of career development – the “publish or perish” syndrome – which drives researchers to publish as many papers as possible. This has led to an increase in the “salami tactic” publishing of the “least publishable unit” and the practice of reciprocal authorships.
MC:
Can you summarize the key actionable solutions to the problem of journals operating predatory publishing practices that are put forward in the paper?
KT:
First: create a quality-centric journal-editor code of conduct that is based on the science ethos, rigor and transparency (this is currently being drawn up by a Task Force of the European Academy of Microbiology, which I chair).
Second: establish a system of journal accreditation based upon adoption and strict adherence to the code of conduct.
Third: implement a funding agency policy of financing publication costs only of those papers published in accredited journals. This proposal has the twin virtues of degrading the business model of journals with predatory practices, on one hand, and allowing journals currently with predatory practices to adapt their business model to one that emphasizes quality, on the other.
MC:
How can aspiring scientists or early career researchers navigate the landscape of journals employing predatory practices? What advice do you have?
KT:
Most researchers with little publication experience definitely have difficulty navigating the current journal landscape on their own. But this is the generic issue of experience asymmetries between older and younger scientists, which is addressed through mentoring. My recommendation is simple: seek advice from experienced researchers whom you respect.
MC:
What impact do you hope your paper could have?
KT:
My impression is that there is currently a sense of helplessness in the scientific research community, that we have an existential problem which perpetually worsens, with no solution in sight. I believe that the solution we have proposed is both feasible and effective. But it requires the full participation of funding agencies and their political masters, and preferably, full participation of indexing services.
I hope that the paper will be widely read and trigger a light bulb moment in all those scientists frustrated with predatory publication practices – “that is the solution we need!” – thereby convincing enough leaders in the field and galvanizing them into action to convince, in turn, the funding agencies. I believe that we will succeed because ultimately this is about choices, how governments and ministries spend tax revenues and the responsibility they have to the tax-paying public to spend wisely.
Of course, the principal impact we aim for is to halt the decline of science rigor, to begin the process of raising standards and to instil in young researchers the science ethos through active mentoring and practicing what we preach.
We also hope that our message becomes part of science education at all levels, and perhaps that our editorial may even become essential undergraduate reading.
