'Pay to publish' schemes rampant in science journals

March 22, 2017
Credit: Charles Rondeau/public domain

Dozens of scientific journals appointed a fictive scholar to their editorial boards on the strength of a bogus resume, researchers determined to expose "pay to publish" schemes reported Wednesday.

One snared in the sting operation offered the imaginary applicant a 60/40 split—60 percent for the journal—of fees collected from scientists seeking to publish their research.

Universities have famously become "publish or perish" ecosystems, making many academics desperate to get their work into print.

Several publications assigned the phantom editor to an unpaid, top-level position.

"It is our pleasure to add your name as our editor-in-chief for this journal, with no responsibilities," responded one within days.

"Many predatory journals hoping to cash in seem to aggressively and indiscriminately recruit academics to build legitimate-looking editorial boards," Katarzyna Pisanski, a social scientist at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, wrote in Nature.

In this case, the publishers padding their mastheads failed to notice that their new recruit's name—Anna O. Szust—translates as "Anna, a fraud" in Polish.

Despite this inside joke, the probe of academic integrity at hundreds of science journals—some reputed, others already on a blacklist—was dead serious.

"Although pranksters have successfully placed fictional characters on editorial boards, no one has examined the issue systematically," Pisanski noted.

"We did."

Pisanski and three colleagues concocted the fake application—supported by a cover letter, a CV boasting phony degrees, and a list of non-existent book chapters—and sent it to 360 peer-reviewed social science publications.

In the peer-review process, journals ask outside experts to assess the methodology and importance of submissions before accepting then.

Predatory journals

The journals were drawn equally from three directories: one listing reputable titles available through subscriptions, with a second devoted to "open access" publications.

The third was a blacklist—compiled by University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall—of known or suspected "predatory journals" that make money by extracting fees from authors.

The number of these highly dubious publications has exploded in recent years, number at least 10,000.

Indeed, 40 of the 48 journals that took the bait and offered a position to the fictitious Anna O. figured on Beall's list, which has since been taken offline.

The other eight were from the open-access registry.

No one made any attempt to contact the university listed on the fake CV, and few probed her obviously spotty experience.

One journal suggested "Ms. Fraud" organise a conference after which presenters would be charged for a special issue.

"Predatory publishing is becoming an organised industry," said Pisanski, who decided not to name-and-shame the journals caught out by the sting.

Their rise "threatens the quality of scholarship," she added.

Even after the researchers contacted all the journals to inform them that Anna O. Szust did not really exist, her name continued to appear on the editorial board of 11—including one to which she had not even applied.

None of the journals from the most select directory fell in the trap, and a few sent back tartly worded answers.

"One does not become an editor by sending in a CV," came one reply.

"These positions are filled because a person has a high research profile and a solid research record."

Explore further: Who will keep predatory science journals at bay now that Jeffrey Beall's blog is gone?

Related Stories

Flawed sting operation singles out open access journals

October 4, 2013

In a sting operation, John Bohannon, a correspondent of Science, claims to have exposed dodgy open access journals. His argument seems to be that, because of their business model, some journals are biased towards accepting ...

Science's spam epidemic

December 2, 2016

"Hope this email finds you in superior spirits." So began a message that recently arrived in the inbox of Adriano Aguzzi, a neuropathologist at the University of Zurich. Although an apparently innocuous, even friendly, opening ...

Scientists defrauded by hijacked journals

November 4, 2015

Scientific progress is being hindered by the emergence of a relatively new kind of fraud – the hijacked scientific journal, according to researchers from Iran and Poland. They describe the problem and its detrimental effects ...

Recommended for you

Metacognition training boosts gen chem exam scores

October 20, 2017

It's a lesson in scholastic humility: You waltz into an exam, confident that you've got a good enough grip on the class material to swing an 80 percent or so, maybe a 90 if some of the questions go your way.

Scientists see order in complex patterns of river deltas

October 19, 2017

River deltas, with their intricate networks of waterways, coastal barrier islands, wetlands and estuaries, often appear to have been formed by random processes, but scientists at the University of California, Irvine and other ...

Six degrees of separation: Why it is a small world after all

October 19, 2017

It's a small world after all - and now science has explained why. A study conducted by the University of Leicester and KU Leuven, Belgium, examined how small worlds emerge spontaneously in all kinds of networks, including ...

Ancient DNA offers new view on saber-toothed cats' past

October 19, 2017

Researchers who've analyzed the complete mitochondrial genomes from ancient samples representing two species of saber-toothed cats have a new take on the animals' history over the last 50,000 years. The data suggest that ...

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2017
Fake news, Fake Science.

Just like Abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. Those mythical creatures slipped thru the net because the editors and advisory board were all fully biased and now they are rampant, gobbling up the minds of those who refuse to acknowledge their creator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2017
Just like Abiogenesis and Darwinian Evolution. Those mythical creatures slipped thru the net because the editors and advisory board were all fully biased and now they are rampant, gobbling up the minds of those who refuse to acknowledge their creator.

Wow..so we're supposed to acknowledge this creator because of...what exactly?

As opposed to evolution which has all kinds of evidence working for it?

In essence you are saying
"This is over here is true because - no evidence. But this over here is false - despite all the evidence for it"

You are so nuts it boggles the mind.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2017
Another classic failure of intellect from FredJose. Cheating elsewhere is still not evidence for your claims.
dudester
not rated yet Mar 25, 2017
No way Moses wrote those first five books.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.