Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice

IF 5.7 2区 生物学
Kenneth Timmis, Paul Williams, Zeynep Ceren Karahan, Purificación López-García, Paul Rainey, Max Chavarria, Chris Greening, Karen Steward, John E. Hallsworth, Cristina Silva Pereira, Rafael Giraldo, Willy Verstraete, Stipan Jonjić, Juan Luis Ramos, Olga Nunes, Antonio Ventosa, Rachel Armstrong, Angela Sessitsch, Eliora Ron, Hui Wang
{"title":"Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice","authors":"Kenneth Timmis,&nbsp;Paul Williams,&nbsp;Zeynep Ceren Karahan,&nbsp;Purificación López-García,&nbsp;Paul Rainey,&nbsp;Max Chavarria,&nbsp;Chris Greening,&nbsp;Karen Steward,&nbsp;John E. Hallsworth,&nbsp;Cristina Silva Pereira,&nbsp;Rafael Giraldo,&nbsp;Willy Verstraete,&nbsp;Stipan Jonjić,&nbsp;Juan Luis Ramos,&nbsp;Olga Nunes,&nbsp;Antonio Ventosa,&nbsp;Rachel Armstrong,&nbsp;Angela Sessitsch,&nbsp;Eliora Ron,&nbsp;Hui Wang","doi":"10.1111/1751-7915.70180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scientific research seeks to extend knowledge and understanding, an activity that perhaps more than any other advances society and humanity. In essence, it is the search for truth. But, because it seeks new knowledge, there is little or no benchmark for appraisal of the plausibility or validity of the immediate conclusions drawn from new information gained, no instant confirmation. For this and other reasons, the science ethos requires the highest level of <i>rigour</i> to ensure the highest level of probability that new findings are true, or at least the most plausible under the prevailing circumstances and state of knowledge. Research is only as good as its degree of <i>rigour</i>. Rigour comes through intensive and comprehensive scientific training and mentoring that teaches critical and agnostic evaluation of new results, self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Additional rigour comes via independent scrutiny and validation: peer review of results and interpretations submitted as publications, and peer repetition of key experiments. However, the current proliferation of publication vehicles whose business model is based on maximisation of papers published, and the revenue stream of article processing charges (APCs) they generate, is promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing–editing practices. Such <i>predatory practices</i> result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its “truthfulness”. Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem. This Editorial is a call for action to all actors, in particular leaders, in scientific research to oppose predatory practices in science dissemination—to restrict the operational space of those responsible for such practices—in order to restore and maintain research rigour and the science ethos and to prevent a downward spiral of research quality. It proposes two linked actionable solutions to the problem, one for the “pull” element of predatory practices and one for the “push” element of research ecosystem management practices, especially those promoting the <i>publish or perish</i> mentality, that drive authors to publish in journals with predatory practices. To counter the “pull”, we propose a solution based on the principle of <i>prevention, rather than cure,</i> and list a number of essential policy decisions and actions that should be taken at all levels of the science chain/cloud to achieve this. A central plank of the concept is <i>journal accreditation</i>, without which a journal would be ineligible for payment of APCs from public funds. For accreditation, a journal would need to convincingly demonstrate adoption of a prescribed <i>journal code of conduct</i>. Ideally, accreditation would also be required for inclusion in journal indexing and ranking services and bibliographic databases. To counter the “push”, we propose a top-down imposition of a cultural change in science management that ensures merit-based success of scientists and their careers, research best practice, improved education and mentoring of younger scientists in the science ethos and greater support of them in their careers. This must include explicit recognition of the crucial role of peer reviewing for the good health of the research enterprise, its incentivisation and appropriate appreciation of the time and effort involved. To orchestrate this change, we propose the creation of a multi-stakeholder alliance whose brief is to develop the framework and implementation strategy for changes in the research ecosystem. This Editorial also exhorts all actors to embrace the principle of <i>publish less, publish better</i> and to use public funding provided by tax revenues more effectively to perpetually raise the bar of science quality, dissemination and potential to advance humanity.</p>","PeriodicalId":209,"journal":{"name":"Microbial Biotechnology","volume":"18 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1751-7915.70180","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microbial Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1751-7915.70180","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific research seeks to extend knowledge and understanding, an activity that perhaps more than any other advances society and humanity. In essence, it is the search for truth. But, because it seeks new knowledge, there is little or no benchmark for appraisal of the plausibility or validity of the immediate conclusions drawn from new information gained, no instant confirmation. For this and other reasons, the science ethos requires the highest level of rigour to ensure the highest level of probability that new findings are true, or at least the most plausible under the prevailing circumstances and state of knowledge. Research is only as good as its degree of rigour. Rigour comes through intensive and comprehensive scientific training and mentoring that teaches critical and agnostic evaluation of new results, self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Additional rigour comes via independent scrutiny and validation: peer review of results and interpretations submitted as publications, and peer repetition of key experiments. However, the current proliferation of publication vehicles whose business model is based on maximisation of papers published, and the revenue stream of article processing charges (APCs) they generate, is promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing–editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its “truthfulness”. Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem. This Editorial is a call for action to all actors, in particular leaders, in scientific research to oppose predatory practices in science dissemination—to restrict the operational space of those responsible for such practices—in order to restore and maintain research rigour and the science ethos and to prevent a downward spiral of research quality. It proposes two linked actionable solutions to the problem, one for the “pull” element of predatory practices and one for the “push” element of research ecosystem management practices, especially those promoting the publish or perish mentality, that drive authors to publish in journals with predatory practices. To counter the “pull”, we propose a solution based on the principle of prevention, rather than cure, and list a number of essential policy decisions and actions that should be taken at all levels of the science chain/cloud to achieve this. A central plank of the concept is journal accreditation, without which a journal would be ineligible for payment of APCs from public funds. For accreditation, a journal would need to convincingly demonstrate adoption of a prescribed journal code of conduct. Ideally, accreditation would also be required for inclusion in journal indexing and ranking services and bibliographic databases. To counter the “push”, we propose a top-down imposition of a cultural change in science management that ensures merit-based success of scientists and their careers, research best practice, improved education and mentoring of younger scientists in the science ethos and greater support of them in their careers. This must include explicit recognition of the crucial role of peer reviewing for the good health of the research enterprise, its incentivisation and appropriate appreciation of the time and effort involved. To orchestrate this change, we propose the creation of a multi-stakeholder alliance whose brief is to develop the framework and implementation strategy for changes in the research ecosystem. This Editorial also exhorts all actors to embrace the principle of publish less, publish better and to use public funding provided by tax revenues more effectively to perpetually raise the bar of science quality, dissemination and potential to advance humanity.

采用掠夺性做法的期刊正在系统地侵蚀科学精神:最小化其操作空间并恢复研究最佳实践的大门和代码策略
科学研究旨在扩展知识和理解,这一活动可能比任何其他活动都更能促进社会和人类的发展。从本质上讲,它是对真理的探索。但是,因为它寻求新的知识,很少或根本没有标准来评估从获得的新信息中得出的直接结论的合理性或有效性,没有即时的确认。由于这样或那样的原因,科学精神要求最高水平的严谨性,以确保新发现是真实的可能性最高,或者至少是在当前的环境和知识状态下最可信的。研究的好坏取决于它的严谨程度。严谨来自于密集而全面的科学培训和指导,教导对新结果进行批判性和不可知论性的评估,自我审查和自我批评。额外的严谨性来自于独立的审查和验证:对作为出版物提交的结果和解释进行同行评审,以及对关键实验进行同行重复。然而,目前出版机构的激增,其商业模式是基于论文发表量的最大化,以及它们产生的文章处理费(apc)的收入流,正在推动审稿编辑实践的严谨性和质量标准的潜在退化。这种掠夺性的做法导致了研究质量及其“真实性”的系统性退化。此外,它们破坏了科学精神,并有可能造就缺乏这种精神的新一代科学家。这些趋势将不可避免地逐渐侵蚀公众对科学家和研究生态系统的信任。这篇社论呼吁所有参与者,特别是科研领域的领导者采取行动,反对科学传播中的掠夺性做法,限制那些对这种做法负有责任的人的活动空间,以恢复和保持研究的严谨性和科学精神,防止研究质量的螺旋式下降。它提出了两个相互关联的可行解决方案,一个是针对掠夺性行为的“拉动”因素,另一个是针对研究生态系统管理实践的“推动”因素,尤其是那些促进“发表或灭亡”心态的因素,这种心态驱使作者在具有掠夺性行为的期刊上发表文章。为了对抗这种“拉力”,我们提出了一种基于预防而非治疗原则的解决方案,并列出了在科学链/云的各个层面应该采取的一些基本政策决定和行动。这一概念的核心是期刊认证,没有认证的期刊将没有资格获得公共基金的apc支付。为了获得认证,期刊需要令人信服地证明采用了规定的期刊行为准则。理想情况下,列入期刊索引和排名服务以及书目数据库也需要认证。为了对抗这种“推动”,我们建议在科学管理中自上而下地强加一种文化变革,以确保科学家及其职业生涯的成功、研究最佳实践、改进教育和指导年轻科学家的科学精神,并在他们的职业生涯中给予他们更多的支持。这必须包括明确承认同行评议对研究企业的良好健康至关重要的作用、对其的激励和对所涉时间和努力的适当赞赏。为了协调这一变化,我们建议创建一个多方利益相关者联盟,其宗旨是为研究生态系统的变化制定框架和实施战略。这篇社论还敦促所有参与者接受少发表、更好发表的原则,并更有效地利用税收提供的公共资金,以不断提高科学质量、传播和促进人类进步的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Microbial Biotechnology
Microbial Biotechnology Immunology and Microbiology-Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
3.50%
发文量
162
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Microbial Biotechnology publishes papers of original research reporting significant advances in any aspect of microbial applications, including, but not limited to biotechnologies related to: Green chemistry; Primary metabolites; Food, beverages and supplements; Secondary metabolites and natural products; Pharmaceuticals; Diagnostics; Agriculture; Bioenergy; Biomining, including oil recovery and processing; Bioremediation; Biopolymers, biomaterials; Bionanotechnology; Biosurfactants and bioemulsifiers; Compatible solutes and bioprotectants; Biosensors, monitoring systems, quantitative microbial risk assessment; Technology development; Protein engineering; Functional genomics; Metabolic engineering; Metabolic design; Systems analysis, modelling; Process engineering; Biologically-based analytical methods; Microbially-based strategies in public health; Microbially-based strategies to influence global processes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信