sueddeutsche.de
PNAS Study Exposes Systemic Fraud in PLoS ONE Peer Review
A PNAS study reveals that 45 PLoS ONE editors were responsible for almost one-third of the journal's 702 retracted articles, highlighting a systemic issue within the journal's peer-review process and pointing towards a network of 'paper mills' and 'brokers' facilitating fraudulent publications.
- How does the involvement of 'paper mills' and 'brokers' contribute to the publication of fraudulent research in scientific journals?
- The disproportionate number of retractions linked to a small group of PLoS ONE editors points to a potential network facilitating the publication of fraudulent research. This network, involving 'paper mills' and 'brokers', mass-produces low-quality manuscripts and facilitates their publication in journals, often bypassing proper peer review.
- What systemic issues within the peer-review process of PLoS ONE are revealed by the disproportionate number of retractions linked to a small group of editors?
- A study in the journal PNAS reveals that 45 editors of the open-access journal PLoS ONE were responsible for nearly a third of the journal's 702 retracted articles, despite overseeing only 1.3% of its publications. This suggests a systemic issue within the journal's peer-review process.
- What comprehensive reforms are necessary to address the incentivization of unethical behavior in scientific publishing and prevent the further contamination of scientific literature?
- The study highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms within scientific publishing. The intense competition for funding and career advancement incentivizes unethical behavior, necessitating a shift away from a system that prioritizes quantity of publications over quality and the implementation of independent, technology-enhanced fraud detection.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the scale and severity of the problem of scientific misconduct, particularly focusing on the high number of retractions from PLoS ONE and the role of a small group of editors. The headline (if there were one) would likely highlight the alarming statistics. The introduction sets a negative tone, immediately focusing on the problem and the researchers' concerns. This framing could alarm readers and create a more negative perception of the scientific publishing process than might be entirely warranted.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. However, terms like "organized fraud," "problematic behavior," and "scientific misconduct" are loaded terms that carry negative connotations. While these terms accurately reflect the gravity of the situation, using more neutral terms like "irregularities," "questionable practices," and "breaches of research integrity" could provide a more balanced perspective.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on PLoS ONE and its editorial processes. While it mentions the broader issue of paper mills and academic pressure, it doesn't delve into the specifics of other journals or the extent of the problem across different fields of science. This omission could limit the reader's understanding of the systemic nature of the problem and its overall impact on scientific integrity.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy, but it does focus heavily on the negative aspects of the situation without offering a balanced perspective on the efforts taken by journals and institutions to combat scientific misconduct. The narrative strongly emphasizes the problems without giving sufficient weight to the positive efforts made to address the issues.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the issue of fraudulent publications and manipulation within scientific journals, which undermines the integrity of research and education. The widespread presence of "paper mills" producing low-quality articles with fabricated data directly impacts the quality of scientific information available for educational purposes. The pressure to publish also incentivizes unethical behavior, further damaging the educational process.