“ It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it.”
Well… then start reporting it with names publicly and to authorities…
> "every journal publisher and every editor will tell you..."
As much as I disdain academic fraud, I'm also deeply suspicious of statements about "every" editor. So I asked my wife, would is a lead editor of a major scientific journal. Her experience is nothing of the kind. Crappy paper-mill papers, plagiarism, etc.? Yes. Flat-out bribes, no.
Same. I serve in an editorial role for a top journal in my field. I know some foreign universities pay six-figure bonuses to faculty who publish in my journal. I have never been offered anything like a bribe.
In addition to the "every publisher" claim, he also states, "And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well." However, he only provides evidence that something is seriously amiss at Hindawi.
The author links to two articles that detail some really shady behavior, but after reading them it doesn't look like he is adding anything new to the discussion beyond speculation and outrage. Well, that, and using his name and platform to amplify the message that it is time to get serious about fraud in scientific publications (which is laudable).
This is a serious problem, with the linked articles detailing brazen advertisement of payment for publication by people and organizations who appear to be associated with paper mills. I don't think the takeaway is that we should immediately throw the baby out with the bathwater, but this definitely needs a lot of urgent and sustained attention.
No it won’t - the vast majority of the perpetrators, perhaps rightfully, will think that doesn’t apply to their case because of their instititional politics.
I think it's more how the incentives in the system are set up. Unless the incentives change (publish or perish, gatekeeping journals, etc.), then nothing will change.
Just look at all the high profile academic fraud cases in politics - Von Der Leyen (President of the EU Commission, plagiarized half of her dissertation, zero consequences), Aschbacher (Former Minister in Austria, her thesis was filled with grammatical and logical errors that would've shocked a high school teacher, gets to keep her PhD), Voshmgirs (Founding Director of the Institute for Cryptoeconomics at the Vienna University of Economics, the only one who might actually lose her PhD because of this)
As long as the general public does not care nothing will change.
> And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well. Any publisher where people are willing to look the other way.
Authorities? I don't think it's illegal. Also I get roughly 5 offers of "bribes" (of the "special issue" variety) a day, it's an overwhelming situation.
Exactly. Bribing editors to publish your paper is unethical, it's not breaking any laws. The word "bribe" the has the connotation of secretly paying government officials, which is illegal. But authors paying editors? I don't think that's legally viewed as any different for scientific publications than it is for fiction, where pay-to-publish is an accepted practice. (Disclaimer - IANAL)
A bribe doesn't have to involve a government official.
A bribe requires three entities:
- the one paying the bribe (in this case the paper's author)
- the one receiving the bribe (in this case the journal editor)
- the one that actually provides the benefit (in this case the company that owns the journal)
What makes it a bribe is that, instead of paying the entity that's providing the service, you're paying an agent of the entity.
If you pay Harvard $1MM to admit your child, that's not a bribe. It's just a transaction. If you pay a Harvard admissions officer $1MM (to their personal account) so that they admit your child, that's a bribe.
The definition of what constitutes bribery is not limited to legal matters or government officials.
The legal vs. ethical distinction helps determine what can be done about the bribery, but does not change the nature of the act itself. It’s just that bribing government officials has been (appropriately) deemed problematic enough to make it a legal issue vs. just an ethical one.
This scandal may very well provide the impetus to make this kind of bribery illegal too, because of the degree of harm and public interest in that harm.
> Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Scientific journals are not public institutions (though maybe they should be) so their editors aren't holding public duty. Legal duty also seems a stretch, though maybe possible depending on how the editor's contracts are worded. I suspect they don't say very much detail on job responsibilities though.
So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.
This might sound pedantic, but this might be better framed as: The form of bribery that is illegal is the kind that involves offering, giving, soliciting…an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Bribery as a concept stands on its own, outside of the legal system. The legal system defines what forms of bribery will get you in legal trouble, but does not have a monopoly on bribery itself.
To your point, that means there are forms of bribery that may be technically legal.
Yes, the difference between illegal and immoral is one I've myself tried to explain to HN people often enough (though more usually in the context of people trying to argue "It's not illegal, why are you complaining about it", when a company does something immoral). That is why I had the final paragraph:
> So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.
While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal, there are many places (maybe most?) where it's not. Presumably due to the fact that it's near impossible to prove in court unless they were giving out receipts that said "bribe for business deal" on them or something. Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
> While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal
Its over 2/3rds of states and includes most major ones have laws against commercial kickbacks. Even in states that aren't you could be charged with fraud under state law.
> Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
This argument is silly. It applies equally to federal laws that are frequently used to prosecute kickbacks for government employees, contractors and subcontractors. There are plenty of ways to charge someone with kickbacks besides idiotically labeled receipts.
Just because you think you can get away with something because it is hard to prove, doesn't make that activity legal, let alone moral/ethical.
Science keeps a lot of traditions that would be illegal in most fields.
A company wouldn't dare to say publicly "People older than 30 Years can't apply to our job" or "People from NY will be favored, we will not hire people from Louisiana". I see equivalent claims in the Academic field aaaall the time; is pissing on the constitution, and nobody fucking cares.
A fiction editor and a journal editor make very different assertions about what their role is and what their product is. A journal editor taking a bribe could violate claims and promises they have made for commercial gain and could thus constitute fraud, even without any applicable commercial bribery laws in their states.
I know a lab that tried to publish names along with scores for the likelihood that they were h-index hacking.
It's a very popular thing to do for more well known scientists.
Unfortunately legal teams were very discouraging to do so and publishing that type of thing is hard, so it didn't happen.
My understanding is that this is mainly affecting publishers that are widely known to publish low quality, mostly forgettable research.
Like there’s thousands of “machine learning” papers published in MDPI and Hindawi journals that are literally just a writeup of how the authors applied scikit-learn algorithms to a small dataset. No conclusions or advances in understanding are made.
Consequently these are extremely easy to filter out as trash. I absolutely don’t condone or dismiss the problem, but its not yet a serious impediment to real research. It’s mostly self contained within this ecosystem of trash journals. Trash research doesn’t escape containment to contaminate more serious venues because it’s transparently and obviously trash and serious journals care about their reputation.
So, I think its important not to overstate the consequences or reach of this problem. That’s not to say academic publishing doesn’t have problems, but I don’t think this kind of trash publishing is going to seriously impede progress. That said I would shut down all these people and their journals if I could
Interestingly, one of the comments on the article makes this exact point ("Is this actually harmful to the scientific community?" "No one in the real world of scientific progress is getting fooled by a Mad Libs paper in a Mad Libs conference proceeding.")
The real harm here may be moreso outside of the scientific community. Consider why they are paying to get these articles published in the first place. I thought this was well articulated in another comment there:
"These papers are the tools by which fraudsters advance up the acaddemic ladder. As a result, billions of public money get diverted to fund this fakers rather than actual science and scientists.
On top of that, all these fake papers poison the waters and confuse decision makers and the public all over the world, resulting in bad policies that cause more harm."
The issue is that the audience of legit scholarship is neither the public nor "decision makers" nor academic administrators. It's other researchers. The system works fine (more or less) for actual scholars working on advancing their fields. It's just that a scam industry has been built up for the benefit of the other various stakeholders who actually have no business relying on communications that are not meant for them.
> These papers are the tools by which fraudsters advance up the acaddemic ladder. As a result, billions of public money get diverted to fund this fakers rather than actual science and scientists.
That sounds pretty clearly harmful to the scientific community.
Reaction I: It'd be a piss-poor excuse for an academic department that could somehow fail to notice that a candidate's or employee's published works included such crap.
Reaction II: Yeah, there probably are quite a few piss-poor academic departments in this world...
Probably just an incidental effect, but it also provides easy fodder for people who have a major incentive (political, economic) to undermine scientific research as an institution, and sow doubt about any and all research that is harmful to their agenda.
I find that it's a kind of public secret in academia that a paper being even in a "reputable" journal doesn't mean much, and trash is everywhere.
The demands to publish and the ensuing volume are just way too high. If the system demands at least one paper (with novel exciting groundbreaking results) per year to keep a career going, an avalanche of bad papers is inevitable.
I've definitely been asked to review physics papers in MDPI that are clearly high quality and worthy of better journals. It's not that easy to filter out
The problem varies dramatically by field and subfield. ML is by far not the worst affected. There are fields that get papers are published in "reputable" journals that are transparently nonsense, they get a large number of citations, and this happens all the time.
Put all sort of random obstacles to hire, just for fun.
That will create a slight advantage for people that just will lie about having those list of merits (while sending the honest researchers to spend valuable time trying to learn those skills, that aren't really necessary for the job). Will also promote ways to bypass the process, like bribes.
Repeat the cycle until liars start hiring more liars and start chasing off the honest researchers or slowly assimilating them.
Or employ an excel spreadsheet wielding administrator whose only job is to count the number of publications internally for the entire university and circulate back to the department heads and marketing folks.
And see how much they care about which journal papers are published in.
One of the more memorable parts of paying for a deluxe interview preparation course on interviewing.io was the coach emphasizing "There is no place for honesty in a behavioral interview. No one is going to check on your story."
Well, Science (the journal/magazine) runs on kickbacks and bribes too. They just do it through subscriptions that milk public funds so that public can read articles written and reviewed using public money.
Academic publishing is a totally rotten industry, regardless of the funding model. Publishers shouldn't even exist. Dissemination and evaluation of scientific outputs could easily and should be facilitated by e.g. university libraries.
It would be neat if some of the money publishers are sucking up is instead given to the peer reviewers as compensation for their efforts. It is such an important facet of keeping published research to a minimum standard.
The fact that reviewers go mostly unpaid for their work seems like a major disincentive to spend extra time -- which is already spread thin trying to stay ahead on the publish or perish treadmill -- digging deep into papers that send up red flags.
There certainly are these dodgy journals out there, but be somewhat skeptical of why the journal Science, which has fought tooth and nail against making its papers open access, is publishing this -- they want to imply that open access journals in general are scams.
It's true that Science is very invested in this bad (for everyone else) publishing model, and I suppose if somehow, by omission, they managed to convince the population that open access is inherently scammy, that's all the more convenient for them. I wouldn't necessarily group Derek in with that, though, and he's not wrong about this.
One is reminded of the saying, "once a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric". Number of papers published in (almost any) journal, has long since come to be viewed as a target that you have to hit in order to get tenure, grant funding, etc.
Another way to say it is, if there is a problem with bribery, what is it that was supposed to prevent that? Currently, the answer is approximately "nothing". There is nothing in the current scientific publishing system that is intended to prevent bribes, you just aren't supposed to do that, or accept them if they are offered, but there is no mechanism to suppress it. Therefore, it happens.
Is there a trend in nationality of the bribers? In some countries bribes are extremely common. Including a few very large countries with an increasing presence in global academia. Are these bribes coming from the UK, France, Germany, the US, Japan, who have long contributed to the international academic scene and which don't have pervasive issues with bribes?
The higher the stakes, the less we should trust what we're "told". Esp if we're told to "believe and don't question".
It won't always be obvious to you directly, why something is wrong or corrupt, rather this is a sense we have to develop over time: question the people and ideas that we're supposed to "trust".
Blind mistrust can lead to even more foolishness than blind trust because it presumes the individual alone to have the power to fully discern the systems of the world independent of the inputs of others. This framing is how you get things like flat earth, holocaust denial, etc. Healthy skepticism is appropriate - and god bless investigative journalism to find holes in things* - but generally speaking, people try to do the right thing.
* I'd suggest a donation to the Center for Investigative Reporting if this resonates
Also, blind mistrust usually is connected with blind trust ... in someone else. Some 'disprupter' or influencer says 'X is all wrong, they are liars, ...' and goes through the usual diatribe. Something in Internet culture results in a significant number of people trusting them, regardless of any facts, their credibility, the credibility of their target, etc.
Meh, blind trust is equally dangerous, if not more dangerous. Blind trust in Hitler caused the Holocaust. Blind mistrust merely causes denial that it happened.
Why should I trust a scientist? Because they have a few fancy letters next to their name? There’s no scientific evidence, according to themselves, that they are any less likely to be sociopaths, psychopaths, immoral, or irresponsible than the average population.
However if they something about the science they specialise in they are much more likely to know more that you, scientists not in their field let alone the general public.
yes they will lie as much as anyone else but when they do not if you take the expected value of what a scientist says in their speciality it is much more likely to be correct.
> Why should I trust a scientist? Because they have a few fancy letters next to their name?
That's not why people place trust in some scientists. Can you think of other reasons? How do you evaluate anyone's trustworthiness, unless you know them or research them personally (something we don't have time for)? Otherwise, you are stuck with blind mistrust, as you say.
> Blind trust in Hitler caused the Holocaust.
Blind loyalty, perhaps, and following the crowd and avoiding conflict, and amorality.
You’re posting your conspiracy theory under the wrong article. This one is about paper mills, not the manipulation of public opinion in high-stakes cases.
You're posting the "trust the system" apologetics under the wrong comment.
The observation the parent makes about "high stakes" is fully compatible with the article, and it's just a general observation about similar shit on all domains. The same shit that happens when there are high stakes (products, money, careers, grants, etc.) on the table for scientists/journals is also true for politicians, journalists, regulating bodies, and so on.
It's also not a conspiracy theory: just basic life experience.
I started ignoring MDPI emails entirely. I even know someone who is threatening legal action against them because they refuse to stop asking him to review papers for them.
The problem is that it poisons everything. It's not just those bribing, it makes everyone suspicious of legitimate journals too. Scientific literature in general is devalued by these paper mills. Now every scientist has to keep a list in their mind of "reputable journals". And guess what, those journals aren't that great either!
the problem comes from scientometrics. you have to pump up your numbers as a researcher if you ever want to get that grant, or that promotion or that tenure position.
there was a time when there were far less journals and articles published per year. people spent a lot more time on an article and it shows. read an article today and you are left with nothing. back in the day (and by that I mean before about 2010) you had everything you needed to understand the subject and form your ideas. today is about tonnes of references (and not the useful kind either!) and inventing catchy acronyms.
but now that scientometrics is so important everyone is chasing the numbers and not the quality. you need that high impact factor up, that h-index, the influence score and the citations up. and since you have no chance to spend more time to increase the quality of your article, the next best thing is to increase the quantity you push into the grind. these predatory publications are precisely the answer to this artificially increased demand. yet people continue to be surprised.
think about it for a second: consider how many PhDs are awarded each year, they have to go somewhere and most of them want to go up. hence the increased demand. PhD courses are a huge business for universities, and this business drives the publishing industry. mix into this the fact that in academia, you have to change your research subject about every three years to keep it real for the grant masters with the big project money, you get to this disaster today.
try to build a bibliography today on a new subject and you will find tonnes of articles and then try to find the ones where you can actually understand where the science on that subject is at.
i don't know what the solution is, but counting scienctometric indices is not it.
I agree with the author that improper scientific publishing became systematically worse over the last couple of decades, and was coupled with an explosion in science and technology which is a great thing. The somewhat optimistic thought here is that once we can have AI evaluate/referee papers we will reach a state where scientific publishing is judged in a fair and transparent manner.
Assuming these papers are at the boundary of human knowledge, what would these AIs be trained on? How much authority should rest on an LLM reporting that, statistically, the paper’s tokens appear to match up with that trained model?
"More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record". Nature 12/12/2023 [1]
Are we training AI on this fake papers also? How do the AI companies would remove a fake claim after it is included as true on AI models when popularity depends on how much boring is a theme?
Until the last years, I never had seen so many papers that claim flamboyant new scientific discoveries that are counterintuitive, against the logic, or directly don't make any sense.
An AI that can execute (all forms of) logic perfectly seems like an obviously useful approach since it is largely (entirely?) domain agnostic, and can fill the gap humans are not able to for cultural reasons.
In my experiments, GPT-4 is already extremely capable in this regard.
It’s really worrying that the scientific community seems unable to implement better institutions and processes for itself.
Publishing articles is a requisite for professional advancement, yet editors and reviewers are usually unpaid. It doesn’t take a genius to understand the incentives at play.
Do we still need “scientific journals” in the era of ~0 cost publishing?
I keep seeing a lot of problems with the journal system as it stands now, and can’t think of any benefits that can’t be duplicated by a shift away from it.
I think you are not the only one asking this question.
The issue, as best I understand it, is that there is a desire for a source of minimally-vetted scientific papers, something more reliably worth reading than "it's on the internet somewhere". The problem being that current journals in many cases only pretend to offer this, without actually doing so.
That’s the impression I get too, and it seems to boil down to two things:
1. Does the paper hold up to scrutiny by people who understand the subject matter? (Including: Are the facts represented truthfully, is it free from bias, do the calculations and charts actually represent the data, is the experiment viable)
2. Can the results be reproduced by a totally unrelated (and unbiased) team?
And it feels like we’re at an excellent time in history where we can handle #1 through collaborative technologies (even a wiki), and 2 can be done better by encouraging those other scientific teams to publishing results along side the first. Am I off-base?
Science is highly incentivized to make you think that this is what's eroding trust in the scientific literature and institutions. Not ivory tower "trust the science" rhetoric. Not universities being taken over by administrators and pushing everyone who is competent and self respecting into private industry. Not the insane things that Science/Nature publish themselves on a regular basis. The real problem is random no-name professors bribing their way into no-name journals.
While both practices are problematic, bribes are categorically worse. A flat fee only gatekeeps people who don't have enough money, whereas bribes gatekeep people who are ethical.
Furthermore, an author who pays a fee will still have their paper will still go through a (hopefully rigorous) review process involving input from independent peer reviewers as well as the editor. Paying the journal a fee does not directly and intentionally subvert the review process, whereas bribing the editor does.
Not nearly as important as Science, but I had a friend who worked at a noteworthy video game publication in the 90s who had many good stories of bribes, arm-twisting, etc from game publishers.
All names on a paper should be tarnished if their papers were found published with bribes, you’d create an incentive for all involved to make sure no bribes were used
> This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it.
What else can be done? This isn't a meritocracy, it's just capitalism. Is the alternative going to make more money? Then it will probably win. Is it going to make less money? Then it will almost certainly lose.
I think the simplest way to push more honesty into the system is to better inform consumers - Right now, a byline is a byline, and a citation is a citation, and those sell. People are vaguely aware that there are lower- and higher-quality papers, but for the most part, these bribes are considered someone else's problem and careers still use these simple metrics regardless of quality. We have to reduce the incentives to game the metrics, increase investigation for misconduct, and increase the penalty when that misconduct is found.
But how are we going to cause people to do those things? How does that pay?
>What else can be done? This isn't a meritocracy, it's just capitalism.
What an absurd take. Just because it involves money doesn't mean it's "capitalism"s fault, for starters because this has way more to do with regulatory capture than anything else.
The number one reason for all these fraudulent research is that it has become mandatory for phds, and that education in the west is subsidized to a point that you need a phd to qualify for jobs that would have only required a bachelor's 50 years ago. There's a law of diminishing returns to science, so vastly increasing the amount of people researching is going to disappoint lots of them. It's only reasonable that a number of them will take the easy way out and cheat.
I've said this before... we need a open-source "(Git)Hub for Science" where anyone is allowed and encouraged to publish and continuously iterate on their 'research' and peer review is crowd-sourced from the community via discussion on a open forum attached to the research (the way issues are attached to a repo). Mentioning Github is triggering for some because they less about foundational open-source support these days
short description:
- upload and manage your data, analysis code, research 'write-up' and other supporting on the platform in revision control repository (basically using git) that the main research controls and can invite other to be editors.
- platform would have electronic lab notebook features... all data/etxt/etc. generation/upload and modification is time stamped.
- data tables/mini-databases and data files would be assigned unique Id's so that the data can be cross referenced in other research repo's. So calculations, etc. can reference and use revision controlled data in other repos. This could rapidly turn into a mess at scale (I'm not a DB expert) but this would be cool.
- platform would have internal publishing platform for generating a 'polished presentation/manuscript' of the research: written article, iteractive notebook, slides, etc." Think of this as the polished readme or GitHub Pages of the repo, but with more features to generate really clean looking, polished copy like Authorea, Curvenote, Overleaf.
- each repo would have a discussion forum like "github or gitlab issues" but with a little more functionality akin to Discourse.
- the platform would also have a centralized topical discussion forum like reddit but with subreddits matching topical research areas.
- users can build research collections that they follow, get update notifications, and can reference in their own research. So the system has an built-in bibliography system on steroids.
- platform is free to use and access for everyone, period.
- platform could be federated where platform nodes could be run by universities, companies, government labs, etc. Haven't thought this through in detail but could be done. Would provide some fault tolerance.
Benefits:
- research would be accessible to all... this by itself will be a radically positive enhancement.
- Communication of ideas would be enhanced by provision of all data, experimental procedures, analysis code, etc. No page limits... just communicate what you think is necessary whether it is one page or two hundred pages. Science communication can also be corrected, amended, and improved over time. Most research papers have something wrong with them; few errors are ever corrected unless they are so wrong that a retraction is necessary. Even so, most papers are not retracted. By virtue of the issues and discussion forum, and the ability to edit your papers... research would have a much longer 'shelf-life' and new readers would be able ascertain whether or not a body of research is reliable/trustworthy or not.
- editorial review and peer review would no longer be gating to whether or not something gets published. This removes political and scientific bias from the review process.
- The concept of high impact journals would vanish... if research is awesome, it will get a lot of activity and "github stars / thumbs up", others will post their own data/research corroborating the original research and want to add to the body of research organically... just like what happens with good open-source software repos. If the research is crap to begin with, folks in the community will point out the flaws and help correct them.
-It will lower the barrier to publishing null-results (tried this, didn't work) and commenting/critiquing/supporting research. We could develop a basic scoring system to 'reward' people who support research via review, critique, assistance, etc. I'm think of ways to help professors and others demonstrate their activity and helpfulness in a research community; publishing is great, but helping make other's research/science better is also highly valuable and we should develop a way to recognize that [for professorship tenure review, etc.].
The scientific record is not a load-bearing structure. It survived because it was something that only academics cared about. Now that publishing is being used as a source to pull metrics from and The Science* is being used a source of political arguments, we’re in a really unstable and dangerous position.
* I want to be clear that I’m very much in favor of science-based policy, but giving The Science credit and blame is not a tenable path forward, because science is hard and there will be mistakes. The way to do it is to have public figures analyze where the field is and stake their professional reputations on interpreting it correctly. Individual professional reputation is the load bearing structure of a serious society.
I don't think that's the problem. The problem is "publish or perish" and the fact that survival and job advancement depend on quantity over quality of publications. That drives a huge demand to be published, and the purpose of getting published is not to advance science but to get more bullet points on an a C.V.
I agree. One thing that is pretty depressing to anyone that spends time in grad school or in academia is that universities and colleges put barely any importance on a professor/scholar's teaching ability. Education is simply not the main focus at all. Instead, they view scholars as research machines. Rather than giving research and scholarly inquiry the time and patience it requires (a lot), they would have published research occur like clockwork and in many cases regardless of the quality of that published research. This looks better for the school; but leads to middling research at best and often shady stuff by harried researchers, and a subpar teaching experience for most students who are always second fiddle to the endless demands to publish. The school benefits (per se, they don't like getting caught in scandals of their own making, of course), while researchers and students get subpar experiences all around.
Exactly why I left academia with my Master's and didn't pursue a PhD. A few years into my professional life I met a PhD who had actually gotten tenure and gave it up to come work in industry. When I asked him whether he missed academia he said, "I miss the idea of it, but the idea isn't what it is."
You are reversing cause and effect. You "perish" by being unable to procure grants. Grants require a publishing record. Why? Because estimating success is harder than simply looking up a list. The entire system works that way. The hiring procedures are simply following this system.
>"publish or perish" and the fact that survival and job advancement depend on quantity over quality of publications.
I mean, kind of but not really.
Any academic of even marginal skill can smell a padded CV from a mile away. The type that do this are not serious people and will waste your time and resources. Knowing how to identify an imposter is a survival trait.
Usually the type to pad a CV with garbage are eyeing admin or corporate gigs, not academic success. A search committee or tenure committee wouldn't look too kindly at a bunch of wacky papers in the east austrian journal of ass-scratch.
Yes there is huge demand to be published, but quality matters a lot if you intend to seriously participate in the scientific community.
> Any academic of even marginal skill can smell a padded CV from a mile away
A couple drops of "Eau de Népotisme" and the smell goes away miraculously. Torturing your job requisites so only the desired local candidate can apply is a way to "solve" it.
In my experience this happens very rarely. In most places that I'm aware of, there is a very strong aversion to hiring local candidates for tenured (or tenure track) positions.
For example, in Germany it is extremely rare to become a professor at the. University where you did your phd/postdoc. It's almost always seen a something not quite right.
Now there is still lots of politics involved in the hiring process. Tenured positions are rare and often the other academics on the committee want to candidates which strengthen their own research area (although interestingly if there is a colleague down the corridor or someone at a university half way around the world who can do some technique you require, collaboration is much more likely to happen with the external person)
Let’s take the perfect paper as an example. This “impossible” paper is the product of Science Done Right. The authors previously registered their hypotheses and methods. The data are collected in the most rigorous fashion. The analyses and the data are all available to the public, and review shows that everything is in fact perfect. The conclusions of the paper are supremely consequential.
Does rational policy immediately change based on the conclusions of this paper? I argue no! Maybe discussions start immediately, confirmation is sought, probably many additional studies with the express intent of confirming the result of the first paper are launched. However, there is no such thing as one paper that needs zero additional support from the community.
I agree. Good public policy can never be fully rational or science based. There is always a necessary element of emotion, intuition, and forecasting that goes beyond science.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I think it's "I don't like Real Science, because it doesn't immediately lead to the outcomes I like."
As for "additional support from the community" that's not the solution -- it's the problem. Almost by definition, "the community" isn't qualified to support the paper; only to advocate for their preferred actions.
I think you misunderstood the parent comment. The first part reads as if you're replying to a different comment, I don't see how you could come to that conclusion based on what was said.
For the second part, they were talking about the scientific community, supporting the paper by reproducing results. Not regular Joes saying "I support this paper" or whatever, if that's what you were thinking.
You’re off base here. No single study should ever be used as a basis for policy. Real science is a slow deliberative process that incrementally arrives at the truth. Input from the broader community in the form of confirmatory studies and stringent fact checking is very much part of the process, especially in complex fields like biology and psychology.
Biology and psychology should not be in the same sentence. Only one is a real science.
If you meant "scientific community" then I have no issues. I was reacting to all the "The Science is settled!" articles during the pandemic by people from outside it.
Human psychology is a messy business, but when research is conducted earnestly and rigorously according to the scientific method then it is science by definition.
You can find a discipline problematic and unworthy of your interest without actively gatekeeping it, by the way.
> You can find a discipline problematic and unworthy of your interest without actively gatekeeping it, by the way
Such patronizing. Unworthy of a real scientist.
When their "experiments" generally don't replicate, then it's not a science. Maybe similar to Colbert's word "truthy," what psychologists do is sciencey.
“It survived because it was something that only academics cared about”
The critical change has been in the number of academics, not in their level of care. It was always a small exclusive group. It can only work if it’s a small exclusive group. We can’t make everyone an academic and expect quality output anymore than we can make everyone a coder and expect great software. Academia (higher ed) simply cannot scale and still be what it’s been. Great wine must be produced in small batches, perhaps the elite should be too.
Yes, this sounds accurate to me, because it follows the general pattern that "enforcement by reputation doesn't scale". It works in small groups, because the feedback loop is relatively quick and relatively difficult to evade. The larger the group, the slower the consequences and the easier it is to find people in the group who don't know your reputation yet.
The "solution" which occurs almost immediately to any developer is to automate the reputation, but I think we've seen enough SEO and similar algorithm-hacking to understand how that fails. In fact, "rack up a lot of publications" is itself a method of hacking an attempt at automating reputation.
This is a fair point and it's a valid criticism of scientism which blurs the line between a sort of platonic idea of "science" as an unencumbered pursuit of ultimate truth and "science" as a human endeavour which is subject to current zeitgeist, social norms, economics (funding) and everything else.
The Science has been used for political arguments at least since the founding of the EPA, which occurred over 50 years ago. The Science was used to ban CFCs 30 years ago.
Having spent some time in academia I can tell you the answer - it's the cheating. The rise of science in developing and recently-developed countries where corruption is still endemic has led to there being a large cohort of students and "scientists' who think it's ok to cheat. This is a cultural thing - they're not bad people, and often not even bad scientists - they're just used to a society that operates like this. Don't take my word for it - look at the article and we see the following:
> Jack Ben, of a firm whose Chinese name translates to Olive Academic
> researcher and assistant professor in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Jordan.
> the company acts as a broker, sharing payments from the paper mills with multiple editors—including Omar Cheikhrouhou of Taif University in Saudi Arabia and the University of Sfax in Tunisia.
> A Ukrainian paper mill dubbed Tanu.pro
> While he was visiting his parents in India last summer, a Dr. Sarath of iTrilon reached out to him on WhatsApp, offering authorship of “readymade papers” with “100% Acceptance Guarantee.”
> in Russia and several ex-Soviet countries, for example, policies focused on publication metrics, coupled with a culture of corruption and the transition to market economy
This culture is slowly corrupting scientific journaling itself as an undertaking, firstly because established journals will end up employing some of these people (as in the article), but more importantly because as mentioned, it's a culture problem and who doesn't want easy money and guaranteed quid-pro-quo publication when all your friends are doing it? After all, you're not a bad person and I'm sure your science is fine.
There's a subtle circularity problem with your proposal in that "professional reputations" are largely based on those same scientific metrics, which we know are gamed. The ability of even other scientists outside a field to properly evaluate those within a field is very, very low. And then when you get to the general public, it's just going to be a popularity contest fueled by implicit biases.
Reputation is always circular. The ones who are supposed to be reputable evaluate whether someone else is reputable as well.
But it's not based on metrics. Those are only used as an initial filter. When it comes to important decisions, the reputable parts of the academia rely on peer review. Shortlisted candidates – if not everyone - are evaluated by people who are expected to understand the research itself. Final evaluations are based on subjective judgment rather than objective metrics. It's not a perfect system, but it works reasonably well as long as most of the reputable experts deserve their reputation.
What you're saying makes the issue sound even worse.
> It's not a perfect system, but it works reasonably well as long as most of the reputable experts deserve their reputation.
I don't understand why you'd think this is a reasonable expectation. There's plenty of public examples where assumed competency turns out to be a costly, or even fatal mistake. That's just what's documented. Underneath, especially in academia, there's many examples of grifters in high positions. Every grad student (that is 100%) I've talked to has a story about this.
That's just how human institutions are. There are always bad actors, but as long as there are not too many of them, the honest majority keeps the system working. Meanwhile the bad actors have unfair advantages.
There is a good side to the academia, but you are less likely to experience it if you get into politics. Caring about frauds, grifters, and plagiarism is politics. You should make a conscious choice: do you care more about science as an ideal or about your own research. If you focus on your own research, you can seek like-minded people and ignore those who pursue status.
Of course, the academia is a risky career choice, and success is far from guaranteed. That's why it's important to know when to let go. You should learn to estimate what kind of career success you can expect, without wasting too many years in the process. Once you know that, you can determine if you would be content with that for the rest of your career, and make the choices accordingly.
Philosophy aside, the point is there's no mechanism to distinguish grifters from non-grifters in academia. The proposal "staking professional reputation" requires reputation to be an accurate measurement of competency.
I think my point was that individual performance does not matter. It doesn't matter if someone is competent or a grifter. It doesn't matter if someone achieves undeserved success. The academia is not here to produce short-term value. You don't need measurements that supposedly correlate with it. Measurements encourage gaming them, and gameable systems attract more grifters.
What matters is a culture of honesty. If a part of the academia has it, it probably produces long-term value. Unfortunately a culture is a nebulous idea. You can't measure it, and you can't really evaluate it from the outside. You may see it after the fact, if some people produced good science, because they lived in a culture that encouraged it.
Professional reputation is a signal for insiders. It can be used as a proxy for determining if someone is worth working with and if they are a good cultural fit. It's less useful for administrators, but they are not the ones doing science.
Have there been any research on how power actors infiltrate hierarchies? I have only seen a CIA manual on sabotagong meetings [1].
I have previously been at small companies with former FAANG employees, and they get fortified. They set well defined roles of soldiers and spies that will do everything to twist your arm, if you don't comply they'll push you out. These, in principle non-illegal, shadow hierarchies become the actual rulers of company as they control information flow to management, and they tend to keep the __harmony__.
Most of news media seems to be under control, with media on sync with goverment's tune.
Scientific journals requiring bribes means they haven't been infiltrated enough, but that will happen, there is a perverse interest in place. When we find there is no more disagreement, we will know the shadow hierarchy is doing its work.
Well… then start reporting it with names publicly and to authorities…