Page 1 of 2

European Journal of Applied Sciences – Vol. 9, No. 6

Publication Date: December 25, 2021

DOI:10.14738/aivp.96.11188. Gurevitz, M. (2021). “Futile Publications” – Inevitable Reality or a Challenge. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(6). 296-297.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

“Futile Publications” – Inevitable Reality or a Challenge

Michael Gurevitz

Department of Plant Molecular Biology and Ecology

George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University

Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel

Forty years ago, I met in Manhattan a high school companion, M.D. in profession (whom I never

saw since youth) who told me about his success to publish with little effort papers in mediocre

journals. To my astonishment, he explained (openly and without any embarrassment) his

strategy: “I search the literature for 15-20 years old publications that for various reasons their

subject was neglected thereafter, and so with minimum effort I repeat the study using present

techniques, obtain the same results and conclusions, and send it out as new data. Usually, the

editors and reviewers do not check such outdated literature, and my papers are being accepted

easily. Subsequently, I enjoy substantial increase of my list of publications, which pays off in

academic promotion”. Years later, still with this bizarre story echoing in my head, and along

with a large variety of papers I reviewed ever since, I realized that ‘futile publications” still find

their way to the public domain. This bothering phenomenon raises questions of why is it still

so common and can it be restrained?

The basis of this upsetting problem likely lies under the compulsory desire for public

recognition, rewards, and academic promotion in a highly competitive scientific environment.

However, this desire displays two facets: A positive facet of diligence and innovation that

enhances and broadens the scientific lore, but also a negative face of fraudulence and ‘trash’,

occasionally fake, scientific reports, leading inexplicably to depreciation in scientific faith. This

sad reality persists despite the international controlling system established centuries ago to

disseminate the results of original studies while protecting their authenticity and trueness.

Unfortunately, this system falls occasionally short in identifying futile publications or

fabrications and deceptive data that find their way to the public domain. This raises a question

of whether this increasing volume of dull literature reflects an unstoppable trend of scientific

descent. Clearly, the importance of good appraisal of a submitted paper as well as evaluation of

its scientific contribution to the readership, and whether adequately written, are key when

seeking scientific perfection. In general, the current publication system composed of editorial

boards of scientific journals and selected referees sorts out scanty work and rejects immature

or ‘half-baked’ papers, while proving efficiency in praising novelty and quality. Furthermore,

this publication system enables scientific globalization and spread of 'oven hot' findings, as well

as encourages collaboration opportunities, and constitutes a high barrier on scientific

misconducts and false publication attempts. Yet, further contemplation suggests that this

control mechanism is quite naïve and limited in diminishing 'trash' publications. It seems that

as long as the evaluation mechanism leans heavily on the competitive propensity among

scientists as well as on trust and belief that the entire scientific community is basically honest

and ethical, this leak will not dissipate. Unfortunately, educational values, integrity and trust,

are insufficient in instances where the pressure to publish, what so ever, incites recklessness,

Page 2 of 2

297

Gurevitz, M. (2021). “Futile Publications” – Inevitable Reality or a Challenge. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(6). 296-297.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/aivp.96.11188

or when the rules for sorting out futile publications are insufficient. Numerous reasons enable

this despicable phenomenon, for example: (1) The editor is unfamiliar with the subject and so

his decision relies entirely on the reports of the referees. Should the referees be unfamiliar too

or their appraisal superficial, excessive permissiveness of the editor may lead to acceptance of

a weak, sometimes futile, paper; (2) The editor is personally acquainted with the author and to

avoid an unpleasant debate he decides on acceptance despite serious drawbacks; (3) When a

poor paper obtains positive comments by the reviewers, it may be accepted despite lack of

novelty and negligible contribution to the readers (‘horizontal pile up’). This issue is truly

difficult to judge as always arguments about the need to confirm previous results or widen the

list of organisms or issues explored using various methodologies would arise; (4) The author is

a member in the editorial board, and so the appraisal of his contribution is insincere; (5) The

data has been fabricated entirely or in part with false supportive figures, tables or statistics. In

some instances, the data may rely on previous false publication (‘misconduct pile up’); (6)

When issues other than pure science (political, industrial, personal) are involved in the editorial

decision; (7) The pressure to publish and keep a low-impact journal alive may lead to

acceptance of poor articles.

With such obstacles, may we hope for an improved appraisal system that sticks a finger in the

dam to avoid a minor leak of futile publications from becoming a flood? It seems that an

international tribunal that controls the publication system is required. This tribunal should

survey and identify the most awkward editorials; Be able to shut off problematic editorial

boards until their appraisal procedures are improved; Check carefully upon whoever wishes to

establish new journals, and grant permission only to approved personnel; Disseminate extreme

examples of fraud or trash publications (deliberate shaming); Be able to remove from chair

editors who used their power for purposes other than scientific (political, personal); Serve as

an international high court in debates among scientists and between authors and editors.

Enforcement of strict rules followed by firmer inspection may improve the current leaky

situation. Such tribunal, composed of leading scientists, should have the power and means to

nominate ad-hoc subcommittees and enforce their verdicts. It probably needs to begin by

“cleaning the stable” and disqualification of hundreds of “fake journals” in the public domain,

and continue with enforcement of the rules proposed as well as establishment of an

international scientific constitution.