Publish or perish. It’s the well-known, pithy way to sum up academic life. You either see your name in black and white, or you are shown the door. In some ways, it makes perfect sense. When you’re supposed to be a leading scholar in an area, the primary way to demonstrate that is through publishing. However, as funding for research became harder and harder to acquire, publishing became even more difficult.
Science is expensive. Collecting data takes time, people, and lots of money. Studies often take years to conduct. That’s a lot of time, effort, and money to then go through peer review only to hear some version of “No, thank you likely.” It’s therefore only natural that when there is a demand, someone, or many someones, will find a way to meet it.
Predatory Journals
Predatory journals have been discussed in the scientific community for a long time. Beall’s List was the first attempt at quantification. Since then, the problem has only gotten worse. I personally average around five emails per day from obviously predatory journals. It’s always the same playbook:
- Generic greeting
- Flattery
- Invitation to submit a manuscript based on my previous, usually completely unrelated, work
- Extremely tight deadline
For example:
Dear Dr. Suleta,
We are genuinely very impressed with your work in _______________ (insert topic area/article). As a content expert, we would like to inform you of a new journal/special issue that we are planning and we’d love for you to submit a manuscript! If you could send it to us no later than __________ (usually two weeks from the date of email), it will be included in the next issue.
But predatory journals are only half the problem. People submitting to them are the other half. Anyone and everyone can get their “research” published in one of these journals that don’t actually conduct peer review. Recently, Andrea Love and I did a takedown of an obvious, politically charged “study” in an extremely dubious journal.
Even when a journal isn’t predatory, dishonest, and junk science, it can still make it through peer review. When that happens, it’s incredibly difficult to get an article retracted. For example, the notorious Wakefield MMR “study” took years to be retracted officially.
A Retractors Tale
In August 2024, I wrote a piece about blatant conflicts of interest in a case study involving the treatment of twins with autism. Since then, I’ve been in regular correspondence with the journal about this particular article. It began with filing a complaint about my specific concerns.
Related on the SLP
“It appears as though the lead author may have some conflicts of interest (COI) through his affiliations with Documenting Hope, Epidemic Answers, and Protren. Given that supplements and homeopathic remedies were used to treat the children in this case report, that
supplement and homeopathy companies sponsor Epidemic Answers and Documenting Hope, and his affiliation with Protren, it gives the strong appearance of a conflict of interest. Yet, nothing was documented in the COI section of the case report, despite both Documenting Hope and Epidemic Answers being cited in the Therapeutic Interventions section, as well as his joint affiliation with the University of Maryland and Documenting Hope in the authorship line.
Is there a process for looking into these potential COIs?”
Nearly two months later, I finally received a response:
“Dear Ms. Suleta,
I would like to provide you with an update regarding the complaint you submitted.
The Editorial Office has conducted a thorough investigation in consultation with our Editorial Board and Ethics Committee. We have determined that the identified potential conflict of interest did not affect the interpretation of the work or the recommendations made by the editors and peer reviewers. To ensure full transparency, we propose to publish a correction to the paper that will fully disclose the conflict of interest. This course of action is in alignment with the recommendations provided by our Editorial Board.”
After a few exchanges about the potential timeline for the update, there was radio silence. I checked the paper every month, thinking that the COI section would surely be updated since, well, it’s “just” a COI section. November passed, then December. January and February, too. No change to the COI section. I sent another email inquiring about the change in March with the following response.
“Dear Dr. Suleta,
Thank you very much for your email.
After the investigation, we have drawn the conclusion that the paper will be retracted. We are preparing the materials for the retraction of this paper.
In case of any questions, please feel free to contact us.”
So that’s it, right? Case closed! We can officially declare victory!
Except the paper is still up, and I have not been provided with the expected timeline for retraction. As the Wakefield example demonstrates, it can take a long time. It can depend upon further investigation, author appeals, and more. Meanwhile, the article is still up without an updated COI section or a disclaimer earmarking it as under investigation.
The Walking Dead
Even if it is eventually retracted, zombie citations are a real problem. Retraction Watch keeps a running tally of the top 10 most highly cited retracted papers and the number of times they’ve been cited before and after retraction. Spoiler alert: some papers have been cited post-retraction over 1,000 times. That is junk science, marked as junk and allowed to permeate scientific discourse after it was officially declared null and void. This junk science continues influencing scientific inquiry, hypotheses, and popular opinion.
This is why I preach about good information hygiene. We cannot count on a headshot to predatory journals and scientific miscreants to end science’s zombie apocalypse. There is no foolproof test that can save you from believing junk science. Just good old-fashioned critical thinking and self-awareness. I don’t know the answer to this problem. Thankfully, the good people at Retraction Watch are dogged in their work, and we all benefit from that. For my own story, I would settle for an updated COI section and some sort of disclaimer announcing that the paper is currently under investigation. I’ve only been on this journey for nine months, so I’m settling in for the long haul.
Katie Suleta is a regional director of research in graduate medical education. Her background is in public health, health informatics, and infectious diseases.
A version of this article was originally posted at American Council on Science and Health and has been reposted here with permission. Any reposting should credit the original author and provide links to both the GLP and the original article. Find American Council on Science and Health on X @ACSHorg
