Scientific integrity in the era of predatory journals: Insights from an editors in chief symposium

In recent years, the academic community has faced a growing threat from predatory journals. These are publications that prioritize profit over quality scholarship and compromise the integrity of scientific discourse. Predatory journals often bypass rigorous peer review processes, creating a platform for substandard and sometimes fraudulent research. The proliferation of such journals not only undermines trust in scientific publications but also poses serious challenges for researchers who are trying to responsibly share their findings.

Recognizing these pressing issues, Semmelweis University held a symposium on 16 November 2023, titled ‘Science Integrity in the Era of Predator Journals’. This event was a response to growing concerns about academic publishing. It brought together editors in chief (EiCs) from 14 top journals to discuss critical topics. These included using AI to detect publication fraud, the identification of AI-generated papers, combating paper mills, the necessity of robust submission and review processes and the importance of author identity and conflict of interest vetting.

This editorial offers a thorough summary of the symposium's discussions. It highlights the collaborative efforts to improve publication standards and reinforce ethical practices in scientific research. Through shared insights and strategies, the participants tackled the complex challenges posed by predatory journals, setting a course for sustained integrity in the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Professor Péter Ferdinandy, the EiC of the British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP) and host of the event, presented how he plans to continue the long tradition of BJP excellence while improving overall publication quality as well as the experience of both authors and editors. In this regard, steps have been taken to simplify the BJP publication guidelines and improve turnaround times at every step of the review and publication process (Papapetropoulos et al., 2023). He also highlighted that BJP editors in partnership with the BJP publisher Wiley are taking aggressive steps to combat publication fraud. These steps have involved the development of an efficient pipeline to handle ethics investigations as well as the retention of a consulting editor dedicated to matters of research integrity. As a result, ethical concerns raised internally or by third parties are dealt with in a much timelier manner with corrective action being rapidly implemented where necessary.

The EiC of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP—a sister journal of BJP also published by Wiley), Professor Serge Cremers, delved into many issues surrounding the maintenance of publication integrity. As the BJCP deals with many clinical studies, a strong emphasis was placed on resolving the inherent conflicts of interest that arise between the economics of drug development and patient well-being that may bias the publication of clinical trial results. The BJCP requires all submissions to strongly adhere to good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines, have internal review board (IRB) approval and disclose the identity of the physician conducting the trial. The BJCP also utilizes AI-powered systems provided by Wiley for the detection of plagiarism, image manipulation and other forms of fraud. However, BJCP still heavily relies on its editors and reviewers to detect fraud and admits that despite all the safeguards in-place, intercepting all forms of deceit is not perfect.

The EiC of Pharmacology Research & Perspectives (PR&P—a collaborative Open Access journal of the British Pharmacology Society [BPS], the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and Wiley), Michael Jarvis, highlighted ongoing strategic priorities of publishing pharmacological methods, research replication studies and negative research findings and providing a forum for early career researchers. While only in its 11th year, PR&P provides an important, geographically inclusive, venue for publication of scientifically rigorous papers that directly address issues of research reliability (Jarvis et al., 2023). Like BJP and BJCP, all papers and data submitted to PR&P are initially screened using Wiley's AL-powered manuscript integrity system.

Professor Tomasz Guzik, the EiC of Cardiovascular Research, introduced the meeting attendees to the concepts of ‘Open Science’. This is an initiative that strives to improve the trust and access to scientific knowledge by implementing ‘open’ processes at every step of the way from data generation and analysis through publication and dissemination. Pillars of this initiative are open data, open access publication, open source software, open evaluation and open educational resources. This model was also avidly supported by the EiC of Oral Radiology, Professor Kaan Orhan, who emphasized the need for detailed methodological reporting as well as raw data and source code sharing. Prof. Guzik highlighted data sharing tools such as GO Fair that aims to make raw data easily accessible to both humans and computers, the preprint servers bioRxiv and medRxiv and repositories such as the UK Biobank as a model for open access big data dissemination. He also tackled the role of AI within the open science model, addressing the good and the bad. The advantages of AI highlighted were manifold including its speed and efficiency, potential to reduce human-led analysis bias, enhanced pattern recognition, improved reproducibility and generation of robust predictive models. The drawbacks discussed included AI output quality control, intellectual property and data privacy issues, the introduction and perpetuation of analysis biases and the erosion of human user critical thinking. Although there are manifold benefits to the ‘Open Science’ model, the EiC of Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, Dr. Michael Jarvis, highlighted that the ethos is directly fuelling the rise of paper mills, predatory journals and a sidelining of the peer review process that is making it more challenging to identify high quality publications (Jarvis, 2024; Jarvis & Williams, 2016).

Professor Roland Seifert, the EiC of the oldest pharmacology journal Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol (NSAP) founded in 1873, gave a detailed account of their ongoing war against the fraudulent publications generated by paper mills. Prof. Seifert detailed a three-step approach used by NSAP to identify fake papers which included checking NSAP rejected and withdrawn manuscripts against published literature using text mining tools, comparing the author lists of rejected/withdrawn NSAP submissions with their subsequently published versions in other journals and finally manual verification that the submission is the same if the author lists differed extensively. In this way, NSAP evaluated 2056 papers rejected/withdrawn between 2015 and 2021, finding that 952 were published elsewhere. Eleven of these 952 had radically different author lists than the NSAP submitted versions, and 10 of these were ultimately deemed to be fake papers (Wittau et al., 2024). Notably, the vast majority of the authors on these fake papers were Chinese highlighting paper mills as a geographic problem (Wittau & Seifert, 2024). Disappointingly, the journals that published the 10 fake papers have yet to take substantiative corrective action, highlighting that a massive change is necessary in how journals cooperate to maintain the scientific record. To combat paper mills, NSAP proposes the establishment of a database where all journals would submit their received manuscripts to enable cross-checking and flagging of potentially fraudulent papers.

The best way to prevent overt publication fraud is to detect it at its earliest stages. To this end, the EiCs of Pathology Oncology Research (Dr. József Tímár), Physiology International (Dr. Zoltan Benyó), Pharmacological Research (Professor Emilio Clementi) and the European Journal of Mental Health (Professor Dávid Beáta) detailed the criteria they use to screen submissions. Immediate warning signs of potential fraud include all of the authors on a manuscript having 0–2 previous publications, use of non-institutional email addresses, the claimed institute not having an easily identified homepage, study funding undefined yet the submission contains expensive experiments and if the authors cannot suggest potential reviewers for their work. To help validate author identity, it is suggested that ORCIDs as well as work email addresses should be required. At the level of the manuscript itself, plagiarism should be screened for stringently with 0% text overlap occurring in the results section and <20% text overlap overall. Images should be checked for signs of manipulation and raw data such as uncut western blots submitted along with the manuscript. Additionally, only research that is ethically approved should be under consideration for publication that requires the submission of original internal review board (IRB) documents demonstrating study approval. Author contributions should also be declared using internationally recognized systems such as ‘Contributor Roles Taxonomy’ (CRediT) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Acknowledgements criteria.

The process of peer review is integral to the maintenance of scientific integrity. A general consensus of the meeting participants was that the double-blind review process is optimal for unbiased assessment and should involve at least two expert reviewers. Recognizing the wide scope of their portfolio, it is recommended that journals develop a robust network of consulting editors. These editors, specialists in key subfields, can provide their expertise on an as-needed basis, ensuring high-quality and relevant evaluations.

A consensus view to emerge from this meeting was the need to foster a sense of community among authors, editors and reviewers. Indeed, if everyone has a direct stake in scientific integrity and is personally motivated to help maintain it, there is much less room for fraud to take root. This is especially relevant in the pharmacology research community that has a well-established history of requiring the reporting of clear and comprehensive reporting of research methodology and analysis (Jarvis, 2024). Professor Orhan correctly identified that this begins on the institute level that have to do much more to promote an environment of scientific cooperation and knowledge sharing. He further proposed that specific education at the institute level in publication ethics could go a long way to curbing unintentional ethical lapses and greatly improve outcomes for both authors, journals and ultimately the scientific record.

Another crucial element in safeguarding scientific integrity is the continued support and development of society-affiliated journals as exemplified by ASPET, BPS and DGPT. These society-based journals benefit immensely from the interconnected community of members who regularly engage at society meetings and conferences. Such interactions facilitate a deeper understanding and familiarity with ongoing research in the field. When editors and reviewers are active participants in these scientific discussions, they gain first-hand insight into the nuances of the research and the reliability of the researchers themselves. This familiarity helps in making more informed decisions during the peer review process. Moreover, the society meetings serve as platforms for vibrant scientific debate, allowing potential issues and breakthroughs to be scrutinized collaboratively. By fostering a community that is both knowledgeable and engaged, society-affiliated journals inherently promote a culture of transparency and rigorous scholarly review, thereby enhancing the overall quality and credibility of published research. Additionally, these journals can further support the society's community-building efforts by publishing meeting proceedings (Murphy et al., 2022; Whitehead et al., 2022). This not only captures the spirit of the scientific debates held at these gatherings but also serves as a valuable archival resource that chronicles the progression of thought and discovery within the field.

Professor Zoltan Ungvari of GeroScience highlighted an innovative approach to build community within the journal's network. As part of the American Aging Association (AGE), GeroScience utilizes members with high scientific standing from AGE to serve as handling editors, thereby enhancing the quality and depth of the feedback provided to authors. The journal also has instituted a mentorship program where seasoned reviewers guide less experienced ones, promoting a rigorous review culture. This system has not only increased reviewer reliability but also achieved a remarkable 96% author satisfaction rate, demonstrating the efficacy of community-oriented approaches in scientific publishing.

Efforts to foster proactive engagement among junior scientists are a vital part of community-building within scientific societies. One particularly effective strategy highlighted by Professor Ungvari is the provision of incentives such as publication awards. These awards are given to junior scientists who author high-impact papers published in the society-affiliated journal. Additionally, award recipients are invited to attend the annual meeting of the society and are often recruited for the journal's peer reviewer training program. This involvement not only provides them with a platform to share their work and engage directly with leading figures in the field but also integrates them into the journal's operational processes, including open meetings held at the society's annual gatherings. Such initiatives strengthen the bond between the journal and the society while reinforcing the community as a whole. By supporting the development of emerging scientists in these ways, the journal and the society cultivate a rich environment of collaboration and scholarly exchange, enhancing the scientific community from the ground up.

Notwithstanding all emphasis on scientific integrity and all efforts to prevent publication of fraudulent studies, authors and editors must also cooperate to set the record straight and avoid a positive publication bias in a specific field (Skyschally et al., 2024). Professor Gerd Heusch, EiC of Basic Research in Cardiology (BRiC), proposed that authors are encouraged to use a prospective, power analysis-based study design with appropriate randomization and blinding of investigators wherever possible. Editors should make sure that neutral studies and studies which contradict prior published data are published in equal right with positive, novel studies (Jarvis et al., 2023).

In conclusion, the symposium at Semmelweis University marks a significant milestone in the ongoing battle against predatory journals and the broader challenges facing scientific publishing. The collaborative efforts discussed, and the strategies developed during the event underline a collective commitment to upholding scientific integrity. The measures outlined by the symposium's participants, from enhancing peer review to fostering transparency through society-affiliated journals and social media, set a path toward a more accountable and reliable scientific discourse. A key takeaway is the crucial need for non-predatory journals to form a united front, sharing resources, data and best practices to effectively combat the spread of unethical publications. This cooperation is essential not only for maintaining high standards within individual journals but also for fostering a global academic environment resistant to fraud and misconduct. As the academic community continues to evolve, the importance of robust review processes, community engagement and the implementation of innovative tools such as AI cannot be overstated. By continuing to engage, educate and innovate, we can ensure that scientific advancements remain a beacon of truth and progress.