Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Timmis et al. (Sun,) studied this question.