Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2016 / Mar / Perilous Peer Review
Profession Professional Development

Perilous Peer Review

When something seems too good to be true…

03/29/2016 1 min read

Share

Those of us based in the UK have a tough decision on our hands. Do we stay or do we go? Unsurprisingly, the so-called “Brexit” is dominating headlines – and as decision day looms, the volume and ferocity of the arguments will ramp up. There’s already a lot of scaremongering, underhand politics and most frustratingly of all… unanswered questions. Sadly, transparency is not usually associated with government politics, and while listening to yet another government spokesperson on the radio failing to answer the questions posed, I thought about parallels in scientific publishing. The rules for transparency in the field have tightened a great deal over recent years – and rightly so. As a result, the majority of scientific research papers submitted for peer review are rejected, but a growing number of papers that do make it through are open access – though still not enough, in my view. Nevertheless, I can see this model increasing substantially over the next few years. Certainly, there’s room for improvement in the peer review model, but I’d like to think that what we do read is accurate, is based on sound evidence, and is a complete representation of the research (warts and all). Or is it?

The move away from the traditional print-only journal-publishing model has been a boon for science, but has created fear among some publishers; note Elsevier’s recent attempts to sue Sci-Hub, which backlashed and instead increased public awareness (1). The new trend towards open access (along with the costs that are passed onto authors to make research freely available), has sadly, however, also created a system that’s ripe for misuse. According to a study by Finnish researchers, so-called “predatory publishers” made around $75 million last year (2). As part of their research, they combed a list of discredited journals and they did the math (3). According to the curator of the list, Jeffrey Beall, these are journals that carry fake impact factors, promise a one-week peer review, and overlook plagiarism. Worryingly, the number of papers published by these journals has increased from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 in 2014! Though the Finnish team found the problem to be highly contained in just a few countries (mainly developing nations in Asia, with India accounting for the majority), we can’t assume that the predatory publishing trend won’t become more widespread. Heated competition makes publishing research increasingly difficult – and given that career progress and funding is often tied to impressive publication credentials, it’s easy to see why taking such a risky approach might appeal to some. So if you’re ever tempted by a journal with a fast turnaround “peer-review” process and guaranteed acceptance of your research, it’s worth remembering the old idiom: “when something seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

Fedra Pavlou

Editor

Newsletters

Receive the latest pathology news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. techdirt, “As predicted, Elsevier’s attempt to silence Sci-Hub has increased public awareness massively”, Accessed March 22, 2016. http://bit.ly/1R9f1tC C Shen, BC Björk, “’Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics”, BMC Med, 13, 230 (2015). PMID: 2642306. Beall’s List, Accessed March 8, 2016 at https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

Explore More in Pathology

Dive deeper into the world of pathology. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

Real-Life Forensic Pathology Is Not CSI
Profession
Real-Life Forensic Pathology Is Not CSI

January 30, 2024

5 min read

Sitting Down With… Ken Obenson, Forensic Pathologist at The Saint John Regional Hospital, New Brunswick, Canada

Byte the Bias
Profession
Byte the Bias

January 11, 2024

1 min read

How does artificial intelligence view a pathologist?

Life Balance
Profession
Life Balance

January 5, 2024

9 min read

Sitting Down With… Kamran Mirza, Professor of Pathology and Director of the Division of Education Programs, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Oldie, But a Goldie
Profession
Oldie, But a Goldie

January 2, 2024

1 min read

A shining specimen of microscopy in this Image of the Month

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.