Thousands of scientists pad their resumes with self-published research that value tens of millions of euros of public cash | Science | EUROtoday

Three scientists have invented an eschatological however revealing idea: the PISS, for the acronym in English of Published In Support of Self (posted in help of self). The acronym defines a puzzling phenomenon. Specialized scientific magazines that had been beforehand biweekly or weekly have begun to publish particular points even each few hours, like genuine churro factories. Previously, these monographs had been choose and had been commissioned from an ideal determine in a scientific self-discipline. Now, even probably the most mediocre researchers obtain an avalanche of invites to be editors of one in all these numerous particular points, which have turn out to be a million-dollar enterprise. Thousands of scientists reap the benefits of the chance to publish research with their signature and inflate their resumes by weight. “The pool of science is in danger of being filled with PISS,” because the three researchers graphically warn: the Spanish engineer Pablo Gómez Barreiro, the Italian economist Paolo Crosetto and the Canadian immunologist Mark Hanson.

A typical scientific examine might encompass a brand new remedy for a illness. Traditionally, this advance was printed in a journal specialised in that medical space and people needed to pay to purchase the publication and thus be capable of learn it. With the latest dedication to open entry to science, readers don’t pay and it’s the authors of the examine who must pay an quantity – often greater than 2,000 euros from public funds – to the journals to publish every work. It is a perverse incentive. Institutions require scientists to publish many research to qualify for promotions and wage will increase, and publishers earn extra the extra they publish. The result’s 1000’s of irrelevant particular numbers invading high quality science.

Spanish engineer Pablo Gómez Barreiro works on the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, within the south of England. He says that round 2018 his electronic mail inbox started to replenish with invites to be editor of particular points or to publish research in them, as occurred to a whole lot of 1000’s of colleagues. Intrigued, Gómez Barreiro started snooping round on the Internet and got here throughout two strangers who had been additionally investigating: Hanson and Crosetto. The three have simply analyzed 110,000 particular points with greater than 1,000,000 research printed by 5 publishers between 2015 and 2025. Their conclusion is that almost all of scientists act appropriately, besides every year there are greater than 1,000 monographs with greater than a 3rd of their research signed by the visitor editors themselves. And that is simply on this small pattern.

There are very putting circumstances, explains Hanson. A particular challenge of the journal Processes (MDPI publishing home) contains 28 research on the manufacture of organic medicines. All however one bear the signature of the visitor editor, Jochen Strube of the Clausthal University of Technology in Germany. Another monograph from the MDPI publishing home, this time within the journal Nutrientsaccommodates 24 research on diets to fight phenylketonuria, an inherited dysfunction. The visitor editor, nutritionist Anita Macdonald, from Birmingham Children’s Hospital (United Kingdom), indicators 23. There are authors who, with a single particular challenge, obtain a resume just like that of one other colleague who wants years of labor.

Gómez Barreiro, Hanson and Crosetto urge pressing measures to be taken. “The cost of inaction is immense, if we do not want to continue throwing hundreds of millions of research funds down the drain,” they warn. The three authors have set a beneficiant restrict of 33% self-published research to contemplate PISS a particular challenge. Their evaluation has detected greater than 16,000 works signed by the editors themselves exterior of that 33% accepted. If that proportion can also be included, there are greater than 43,000. “If we assume a conservative calculation of 2,000 euros of publication costs for each study [cobrados por la editorial]between 33 and 87 million euros have been spent on PISS over 11 years,” laments the trio, who’ve solely analyzed 900 of the 47,000 tutorial journals that exist on this planet.

The three colleagues have carried out this analysis of their free time, as a result of none of them is professionally devoted to bibliometrics, the quantitative evaluation of scientific literature. Mark Hanson is an immunologist on the University of Exeter, within the United Kingdom. Crosetto works on the Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory, France. A few years in the past, the three of them and the British anthropologist Dan Brockington already used refined laptop applications to extract all the data accessible on the web sites of the primary worldwide publishers. Their conclusion then was that three corporations confirmed particularly anomalous conduct, with a really excessive proportion of research printed in particular points: the Swiss Frontiers (69%), the Egyptian Hindawi (62%) and, above all, MDPI (88%), a enterprise large based in Switzerland by the Chinese chemist Shu-Kun Lin.

That evaluation confirmed that MDPI squeaked in all indicators. While a prestigious writer might have 185 days on common to evaluate the standard of a examine and authorize or not authorize its publication, at MDPI they solely used 37 days and accepted greater than half of the papers. In the brand new evaluation, one in eight particular points is classed as PISS. 87% of those suspicious monographs belong to the MDPI publishing home: about 12,200. The relaxation, principally, to Frontiers: about 1,600. Both publishers defend their protocols and the standard of their research.

The biologist Isidro Aguillo, head of the Cybermetrics Laboratory of the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), requires punishing a few of these publications, for instance, from the physique that analyzes resumes to determine if a college professor may be promoted to professor or if he deserves wage will increase: the National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA). “The special numbers of MDPI and Frontiers are a huge drain. ANECA must explicitly exclude these works. The vice-rectors for research at universities and similar bodies in Public Research Organizations must identify careers built fundamentally through special numbers and penalize them in the selection and promotion processes,” urges Aguillo.

Of the 200,000 visitor editors analyzed, about 28,000 participated within the PISS. Hanson factors out some examples in Spain, similar to a particular challenge on hydraulic engineering within the journal Water (MDPI) with seven of its eight research signed by the visitor editor, Pedro Luis Iglesias, from the Polytechnic University of Valencia. Iglesias states that the primary cause for concentrating so lots of his works in that monograph was “to allow several doctoral students to publish the results of their research in an agile manner and with reasonable review deadlines.” In his opinion, “the reviews received in MDPI have been, in many cases, as demanding or even more than those obtained in publishers not included in the analysis, such as Elsevier or Springer.” The underlying drawback, argues Iglesias, is the present open entry publishing system. “The real debate is not the existence of special issues, but the acceptance of a model in which the ability to publish is linked to payment by the author, which introduces obvious tensions,” he concludes.

The new evaluation, nonetheless, highlights that the large drawback is the particular numbers that aren’t so blatant. It shouldn’t be even essential to cross the arbitrary threshold of 33%. The report ready on the request of the Spanish Research Ethics Committee that licensed the “deliberate manipulation” of the curriculum of Juan Manuel Corchado, rector of the University of Salamanca, highlighted that he had been visitor editor of 31 particular points in MDPI journals, with 76 research printed in that publishing home.

The authors of this report on the rector, Emilio Delgado and Alberto Martín, specialists in bibliometrics on the University of Granada, have analyzed how “MDPI professors” have proliferated within the tutorial world: professors who’ve risen rapidly because of a curriculum constructed with the sort of research, typically empty. Your knowledge is illuminating. In 2021, one in seven Spanish scientific research was printed in an MDPI journal: 15%, double that of the remainder of the world. In 40 universities it was probably the most used writer, similar to within the non-public International University of La Rioja (UNIR) and the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), and within the public National University of Distance Education (UNED).

Only 4 out of 10 journals examined within the new evaluation are freed from the sort of self-referential work, in accordance with the three authors, who contemplate this apply “a flagrant case of scientific misconduct.” The drawback is concentrated in dozens of MDPI journals: Sustainability (745 particular points with greater than 33% of their research signed by their visitor editors), International Journal of Molecular Sciences (668), Energies (639), Applied Sciences (580), Materials (489). Shu-Kun Lin’s firm earned 588 million euros in 2023 because of article processing costs, in accordance with a calculation by Stefanie Haustein, from the University of Ottawa, in Canada.

“Shu-Kun Lin saw a business opportunity and took advantage of it in a direct and unscrupulous way, but the cause is more fundamental. The incentives to publish or perish are what are producing so much garbage in science,” says Hanson. Geographer Pilar Paneque has directed the Spanish college watchdog, ANECA, since 2023. A 12 months later, the company included the repetition of publications in particular points as an element for depreciating a resume. “Evaluation and financing agencies have an undoubted responsibility, not only penalizing these bad publishing practices, as we already do, but also encouraging good practices, which unfortunately we talk less about. However, our action is always after a publication that, possibly, should not have been financed or accepted by the journal,” argues Paneque.

A spokesperson for MDPI, Korean Jisuk Kang, evaluates the brand new evaluation on the request of this newspaper. “We recognize that the endogeny [la práctica de publicar estudios en un número especial editado por uno mismo] “It is an issue that affects the industry and we take concerns related to editorial independence very seriously,” she says. The spokesperson assures that “MDPI has clear safeguards to address possible conflicts of interest.” The publisher, according to Kang, supervises that the number of studies signed by the guest editor does not exceed 25%, and that these works are managed by an independent member of the journal’s board. “MDPI’s solid editorial framework has sustained the quality and relevance of our special issues, which represented 62% of the content published by MDPI in 2024 and around 55% in 2025”, he adds. The special number is the new normal, according to Gómez Barreiro, Hanson and Crosetto.

In addition to MDPI and Frontiers, the three authors have analyzed BioMed Central, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom and Springer Nature’s Discover series, which account for almost 40% of the journals examined, but publish only 30 special issues considered PISS each year. “We have not been able to study groups like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley or Taylor & Francis, but it is necessary to do so,” the three researchers acknowledge.

The writer Frontiers has printed virtually 1,600 particular points labeled as PISS, however a spokeswoman emphasizes that they’re solely 9% of its output, in comparison with 5% for the Royal Society, 9% for Discover, 14% for MDPI and 24% for BioMed Central. “This highlights our successful efforts to align with industry best practices in special issues,” he says. The writer, the spokesperson assures, ensures that the share of research signed by the visitor editor doesn’t exceed a restrict, which was beforehand 30% of the entire and is now 25%. Gómez Barreiro, Hanson and Crosetto summarize their intentions in a single sentence: “We hope that our work will help editors identify the few bad apples that threaten the rest.”