Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40536143›Full record

ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2025

Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice.

Kenneth Timmis, Paul Williams, Zeynep Ceren Karahan, Purificación López-García, Paul Rainey, Max Chavarria, Chris Greening, Karen Steward, John E Hallsworth, Cristina Silva Pereira and 10 more

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Kenneth TimmisInstitute of Microbiology, Technical University Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0066-4670
Paul WilliamsBiodiscovery Institute and School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Zeynep Ceren KarahanDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Ibn-i Sina Hospital Central Microbiology Laboratory, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Purificación López-GarcíaEcologie Systématique Evolution, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0927-0651
Paul RaineyDepartment of Microbial Population Biology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Plön, Germany.
Max ChavarriaEscuela de Química & CIPRONA, Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5901-3576
Chris GreeningDepartment of Microbiology, Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
Karen StewardTechnology Networks, Sudbury, UK.
John E HallsworthInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Medical Biology Centre, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-9362
Cristina Silva PereiraInstituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica António Xavier, Oeiras, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-1593
Rafael GiraldoDepartment of Microbial Biotechnology, National Centre for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Willy VerstraeteCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology (CMET), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Stipan JonjićCenter for Proteomics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Juan Luis RamosConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Estación Experimental del Zaidín, Granada, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8731-7435
Olga NunesLEPABE-Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4742-2537
Antonio VentosaDepartment of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain.
Rachel ArmstrongDepartment of Architecture, KU Leuven, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3516-6815
Angela SessitschBioresources Unit, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0137-930X
Eliora RonThe Shmunis School of Biomedicine and Cancer Research, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2615-8685
Hui WangDepartment of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3394-1531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific research seeks to extend knowledge and understanding, an activity that perhaps more than any other advances society and humanity. In essence, it is the search for truth. But, because it seeks new knowledge, there is little or no benchmark for appraisal of the plausibility or validity of the immediate conclusions drawn from new information gained, no instant confirmation. For this and other reasons, the science ethos requires the highest level of rigour to ensure the highest level of probability that new findings are true, or at least the most plausible under the prevailing circumstances and state of knowledge. Research is only as good as its degree of rigour. Rigour comes through intensive and comprehensive scientific training and mentoring that teaches critical and agnostic evaluation of new results, self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Additional rigour comes via independent scrutiny and validation: peer review of results and interpretations submitted as publications, and peer repetition of key experiments. However, the current proliferation of publication vehicles whose business model is based on maximisation of papers published, and the revenue stream of article processing charges (APCs) they generate, is promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing-editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its "truthfulness". Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem. This Editorial is a call for action to all actors, in particular leaders, in scientific research to oppose predatory practices in science dissemination-to restrict the operational space of those responsible for such practices-in order to restore and maintain research rigour and the science ethos and to prevent a downward spiral of research quality. It proposes two linked actionable solutions to the problem, one for the "pull" element of predatory practices and one for the "push" element of research ecosystem management practices, especially those promoting the publish or perish mentality, that drive authors to publish in journals with predatory practices. To counter the "pull", we propose a solution based on the principle of prevention, rather than cure, and list a number of essential policy decisions and actions that should be taken at all levels of the science chain/cloud to achieve this. A central plank of the concept is journal accreditation, without which a journal would be ineligible for payment of APCs from public funds. For accreditation, a journal would need to convincingly demonstrate adoption of a prescribed journal code of conduct. Ideally, accreditation would also be required for inclusion in journal indexing and ranking services and bibliographic databases. To counter the "push", we propose a top-down imposition of a cultural change in science management that ensures merit-based success of scientists and their careers, research best practice, improved education and mentoring of younger scientists in the science ethos and greater support of them in their careers. This must include explicit recognition of the crucial role of peer reviewing for the good health of the research enterprise, its incentivisation and appropriate appreciation of the time and effort involved. To orchestrate this change, we propose the creation of a multi-stakeholder alliance whose brief is to develop the framework and implementation strategy for changes in the research ecosystem. This Editorial also exhorts all actors to embrace the principle of publish less, publish better and to use public funding provided by tax revenues more effectively to perpetually raise the bar of science quality, dissemination and potential to advance humanity.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicHumansPeer Review, Researchjournal accreditationjournal and editorial code of conductpeer reviewpredatory practices in research publicationpublication inflationscience ethosscience managementspecial issues

Identifiers

PMID40536143
PMCPMC12177670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.