One of the essential points in scientific work is the communication of results. It is not only essential to transmit the new scientific knowledge acquired to society , which will ultimately benefit from it, but also, and first of all, to other scientists through what we call scientific articles or papers . These writings are sent to specialized journals in the field in which the research is framed, and to be published they must pass a tedious process that we call peer review or, being more correct in the English translation peer review , peer review. These peers or equals, called reviewers, are nothing more than other experts in the same field of study, who review —or should review— carefully the methodology used in the study, the results obtained, and the interpretations that are obtained from them . They discuss those points in which they are not satisfied or think there are lacks of rigor, and if everything goes smoothly, after two or three rounds of reviewers, the journal will end up accepting the article for publication.
This peer review process is essential, and although it is far from perfect, there are magazines that take it pretty seriously. For example, to avoid conflicts of interest such as favoritism that softens the process or personal revenge that hinders it, some journals maintain the anonymity of both the authors of the study and the reviewers . This ultimately results in an increase in the quality of the articles, and with it, the strength of the scientific evidence presented in them.
But not all magazines are the same. In the world of scientific publishing there are many, many chiaroscuro. Many of them, very shady. Aspects that frequently end up allowing articles that pretend to assert things that are, in fact, false, to slip into scientific production. Surely you remember that controversy —a thousand times refuted— that the triple viral vaccine could cause autism , that other —even more refuted— that said that transgenic plants caused cancer, that one that said that the human hand was the product of a design, or the hundreds and hundreds of seemingly scientific articles that — without real evidence — claim that homeopathy is effective. Author Ben Goldacre called this type of publication, in his homonymous book, Bad Science.
Among the biggest producers of bad science we find predatory journals , also known as predatory journals . The first thing they do is bombard researchers with publication offers . They offer supposed discounts, they report that they will release monographic numbers on the subject that is mastered, they offer impact data that is generally false, and so on. Some researchers fall without realizing it, although less and less. Initiatives like Beall’s list expose predatory journals, preventing unsuspecting researchers from falling for it. Others, however, in a world where the volume of scientific production is sometimes more important than its quality, seek it out.
These journals have a business model that, on the other hand, is quite common in real scientific journals . If you want to publish in my journal, you will have to pay, in exchange for the article being open access. But, unlike scientific journals, which pass the filter of peer review before publishing the article, predatory journals do not have that annoying and much-needed drawback. Neither the editor nor any reviewer read the article before it was published . The author sends the article to the magazine, pays his invoice, and that’s it.
This is how, for example, articles generated entirely by computer, with perfect grammar, but without any sense , can be published in magazines with the very convincing name of The open information science journal . information-. Many authors have sent, often under pseudonyms, deliberately absurd articles to predatory journals just to expose their bad practices ; for example, a study that describes a relationship between the presence of birds that resemble fish and the absence of toxic fungi —yes, really—, but that correlation is not observed with pizzas, particularly with four cheeses, chicken, anchovies and mushrooms, despite having birds, fish and mushrooms. And yes, that post is real .
Every time a scientific article is read, it must be done with a critical spirit . Although a scientific publication in a serious, peer-reviewed journal is usually indicative of certain guarantees, authors, editors and reviewers are still human, and they can make mistakes, try to lie or exaggerate. The risk of these events is minimized when the peer review process is well carried out, and thanks to this we have a great scientific production of solid and well-established knowledge that has made it possible for us today to communicate in real time with someone who lives in our antipodes, cure diseases that were lethal a century ago, obtain vaccines for a new disease in months, or make a drone fly over the surface of Mars. But among all that good science there are often articles that seem serious, but have not passed peer review—or have passed it, but it has been nothing more than a pantomime.
That is why it is essential to have good critical thinking skills when reading something, even when what you are reading looks like a scientific article.
REFERENCES
Beall, J. (2017) ‘What I learned from predatory publishers’, Biochemia Medica, 27(2), pp. 273–278. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029.
Beall’s List (2021) ‘Beall’s List – of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers’, 8 December. Available at: https://beallslist.net/ (Accessed: 25 January 2022).
Gilbert, N. (2009) ‘Editor will quit over hoax paper’, Nature [Preprint]. doi:10.1038/news.2009.571.
Goldacre, B. (2012) Bad Science: Don’t be fooled by quacks, charlatans, and other frauds. Barcelona: Espasa Books.
Grudniewicz, A. et al. (2019) ‘Predatory journals: no definition, no defence’, Nature, 576(7786), pp. 210–212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.
Stervander, M. and Haelewaters, D. (2020) ‘Fishiness of Piscine Birds Linked to Absence of Poisonous Fungi but not Pizza’, Oceanography & Fisheries Open access Journal, 12(5). doi:10.19080/OFOAJ.2020.12.555850.
