Learning from scholarly publishing’s past integrity misfires
Three years ago, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic sparked an urgent call for lightning-quick research dissemination and academic collaboration.
While researchers rose to address these pressing needs with admirable determination, one result of such rushed publication was an increase in notable scandals and retractions. In June 2020, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet, two prominent medical journals each retracted a high-profile study of COVID-19 patients. These studies relied on data from a fraudulent database that falsified hospital records, building claims on these rogue findings.
This example reinforces a crucial truth: we can't sacrifice quality for quantity when it comes to publishing. Learn why it's essential for everyone across the academic community to find that sweet spot.
Authors
“Publish or perish”, is a haunting expression in academia, meaning that in today’s competitive scholarly landscape the best way for scientists to advance their career is to publish as many papers as possible. But a pressure cooker is not a stable environment, and at some point things will reach their boiling point.
As Paul M. Sutter puts it, “...the academic beast with ever more papers pushes scientists to sacrifice quality for quantity, leading to rushed, shoddy, and even fraudulent research.”
Yet, publishing inconsistent or low-quality research can irreparably harm an author's reputation, diminishing their prospects of future publication in prestigious journals. So how can authors strike the right balance in publishing their work? Through tools that enable integrity issue detection without compromising time and efficiency.
Our author Submission Checks help researchers take control of their submissions by analyzing citations, validating industry guidelines, and scanning papers at scale. Learn more here.
Publishers
The scholarly communications landscape is dominated by a vast tapestry of publishers, all competing over market influence and fighting to make their mark. With publishers vying to attract notable authors and their groundbreaking research, the best way for these organizations to win market share is through swift publication times and publishing more. The drive for quantity is even more important in an Open Access landscape, where publishers receive APCs for each paper published.
But, when publishers push greater volumes of research and faster publication, they tread a dangerous path, running the risk of sharing poor-quality or fraudulent findings. The aftermath? Expensive retractions, public scandals, and a steep decline in prestige, along with readership and submissions. On the other hand, a sole focus on quality and integrity can spell doom for a publisher’s financial future.
What publishers need are tools that can help them prioritize integrity without sacrificing time and money. We’ve recently released our publisher Integrity Suite, using proprietary Morressier technologies as well as federated access to a growing market of third-party solutions to detect retracted content, plagiarism, citation manipulation, AI-generated text, tortured phrases, and more in a fraction of the time. Discover more details here.
Peer Reviewers and Editors
As fraud rises, it’s clear that the peer review system is stressed to the point of breaking, and there are many ways it needs to change for the better in order to encourage higher standards in research. However, this isn’t for any fault of reviewers themselves, who willingly dedicate their time and expertise to assess the work of fellow peers, while bearing the weight of their own scholarly responsibilities.
When reviewers are swayed by the pressure to publish and are compelled to rush through reviews or take on an excessive workload, the integrity of the system that the academic enterprise relies on becomes filled with flaws and vulnerable to errors. So what’s the fix?
How about automating some of the more administrative parts of the workflow? We respect the time and care each peer reviewer devotes to the process, but are also excited to see improvements and observe the next stage of evolution for peer review, driven by emerging tools like AI and bold, transformative strategies.
Conclusion
Technology has revolutionized the scholarly publishing landscape, creating more opportunities to share research on a larger scale, while still ensuring that these ideas are put through proper vetting methods.
With these tools now at our disposal, it’s time to do away with the relentless “publish or perish” mentality. It’s time to streamline the entire publishing ecosystem from start to finish, using efficient infrastructure as our battle cry in the fight for better science.
