“Futile Publications” – Inevitable Reality or a Challenge

Abstract

This commentary considers why 'futile publications' continue to find their way into the public domain and whether the phenomenon can be restrained. The author opens with an anecdote about an acquaintance who repeated neglected studies from 15-20 years earlier with present techniques and submitted them as new data to lengthen his publication list. The essay attributes the problem to the desire for public recognition, rewards and academic promotion in a highly competitive scientific environment, a desire with a positive side of diligence and innovation but also a negative side of fraudulent, poor and sometimes fake reports. While the system of editorial boards and referees sorts out weak work and protects authenticity, the author argues that it is naïve and limited because it relies on competition among scientists and on trust in their honesty. Seven ways in which futile papers are accepted are listed, including editors and referees unfamiliar with the subject, personal acquaintance with the author, positive reviews of papers lacking novelty, authors who sit on the editorial board, fabricated data, non-scientific considerations, and pressure to keep low-impact journals alive. As a remedy, the author proposes an international tribunal of leading scientists with powers to suspend problematic editorial boards, vet those wishing to establish new journals, expose fraud, remove editors who misuse their power, arbitrate disputes and disqualify fake journals.

Abstract prepared by the editorial office from the full text of the article; the authors did not supply one.