As I said at the time of writing the post, I don't expect my resignation to change much at the Royal Society, but I was surprised at the amount of interest in the matter. The story was picked up by national media (e.g. here and here), and even got covered in France and the Netherlands. I had anticipated I might be attacked by a swarm of trolls, but there was no more than a handful of rude emails, saying the Royal Society was better off without me. What was more remarkable was the outpouring of positive reactions. My inbox was swamped with people thanking me for taking this step - not just academics, but people from all walks of life. It's customary when elected to the Royal Society for colleagues to send congratulatory emails: the number of congratulations I received for resigning was about five times as many as I had for being elected. I felt I had struck a chord with many people who were fed up with unsuitable individuals being honoured. British people in particular were outraged that the Royal Society was honouring someone who was spreading misinformation with the apparent aim of undermining our democracy.
I've seen only one serious attempt to challenge the arguments in my blogpost - by Toby Young in the Spectator. I can imagine that the comms team at the Royal Society may not have been overjoyed at his main line of argument, which was to say that there had been many Fellows of the Royal Society with rebarbative opinions who hadn't been thrown out, so why should they start now? He described me as a left-wing Torquemada, which I rather enjoyed, except that his implication was that my objections to Musk were political. Had he read my blogpost, he'd see that politics didn't come into it - it is the lack of scientific integrity that is the issue.
As a delightful twist to the story, Toby Young, who is notorious for his foul-mouthed comments on women and disabled people, has just been appointed to the House of Lords, showing that the Royal Society is not alone among the British establishment in honouring those who represent the antithesis of their core values. I can only assume that Kemi Badenoch, who was responsible for his elevation, did it to own the libs.
This letter, cosigned by 22 scientific sleuths, noted that laughably awful papers were getting published in the Springer Nature journal Scientific Reports, which is generally regarded as a serious journal. It looked to us as if the journal was being infiltrated by paper mills who were using it as an outlet for fraudulent or low quality work. For this to happen, there need to be editors who are either turning a blind eye to such articles, or were actively working with a paper mill to accommodate them. A quick analysis of the editors listed on the journal website turned up 28 who had records on PubPeer indicative of involvement in research misconduct.
So what has happened since? We received a reply from Chris Graf, the Research Integrity Director at Springer Nature, thanking us for our letter and emphasising the extent to which the publisher was putting resources into tackling research fraud and paper mills. The article that had sparked off the Open Letter was retracted fairly promptly.
But when I rechecked the Editorial Board list today, 26 the 28 editors we'd listed were still in position - even though we'd given links to PubPeer entries that specified problematic behaviours of all of them. The two who are no longer listed are Ilyas Khan, and Achyut Shankar. I have no idea whether their disappearance from editorial roles at Scientific Reports has anything to do with the Open Letter. (Rule 1 of sleuthing: don't expect anyone in power to tell you if they have acted on information you provided).
And a final wrinkle to the story: a fellow sleuth told me about another editor linked to paper mills, Masoud Afrand, who had not been included in our list. He had actually been removed from the list of editors in March 2022, but then reappeared at some point in the summer of 2024 (as verified by the Wayback Machine). The Editor-in-Chief, Rafal Marszalek, explained this as a "clerical error". In email correspondence I pointed out to him that this was a pretty odd kind of clerical error, and that it did nothing to assuage growing concerns that there may be someone at a senior level at Scientific Reports who was actively working with paper millers. I did not get a reply.My experience as a reviewer for MDPI: guest post by René Aquarius
In this post, René describes the fate of a paper that he agreed to review for the Journal of Clinical Medicine, published by MDPI. The paper had numerous methodological flaws, including lack of a control group and discrepancies between the registered protocol and the final study, and René recommended rejection. What then followed was a bizarre series of exchanges with MDPI editors, who encouraged resubmission by the authors, then attempted to block René from re-reviewing the paper, after he'd agreed to do so. Eventually the paper was transferred to another MDPI journal, Geriatrics, where he was again asked to review it. When he pointed out that the paper was largely unchanged from the original submission, it was withdrawn - but he then found it published a few weeks later in yet another MDPI journal.
This blogpost attracted a lot of comments, not least from people who had had similar experiences with MDPI. I have to say that these experiences, coupled with other evidence such as this and this make me very dubious about standards of peer review at MDPI. The impression is that hard-pressed editorial staff are expected to ensure peer review of submissions is achieved in 2-3 weeks, and they accordingly come to rely on anyone who will do a speedy job, without regard for quality. Indeed, high-quality reviews that raise difficult issues are problematic for them, because they will slow up the process. Accordingly these are sidelined or quietly forgotten about, in favour of minimalist 'reviews' such as those you can see here in reviews 1, 3 and 4.
Will anything change? Hopefully, René's post has helped raise awareness of the problematic aspects of peer review at MDPI journals. I doubt the publisher will do anything to change their peer review model unless the reputational damage from such revelations starts to hit their bottom line. Interestingly, in my last post of 2024, I noted that just before the Christmas break, Finland's Publication Forum (JUFO) downgraded the status of 187 MDPI journals in their index, a move that will disincentivize Finnish researchers from publishing there. However, a day later, MDPI announced that it had secured a national publishing agreement with ZB Med, which offered substantial discounts to authors from over 100 German Universities.
Epilogue
In each of these cases, we can see that a blogpost has raised the profile of an issue that is of relevance to academic scientists. Concrete impacts are harder to demonstrate - where changes happen, it's not clear if they are related to the blogpost, or just coincidental. And for most topics, it's a case of two steps forward and one step back, at best. But if I've learned one thing from my many years writing about such things, it's that you can't trust the people in positions of power to actually do the right thing unless they are prodded repeatedly and publicly (and sometimes not even then). So I hope to continue blogging through 2025, even though it may at times seem futile.
Happy New Year, and Illegitimi non carborundum.
Comments are moderated. Those that are in scope and from an identified person will be published after a delay.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment