Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Artículo científico |
| Lingua: | en |
| Pubblicazione: |
Research integrity and peer review
2026
|
| Accesso online: | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42277979/ |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1868266037095432192 |
|---|---|
| author | Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque |
| author_facet | Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque |
| collection | PubMed - marine biology |
| contents | Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health. Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque The paper examines structural distortions in contemporary scientific publishing and their implications for research quality, equity, ethics and environmental conservation. Despite being largely publicly funded, scientists continue to provide unpaid labour as reviewers and editors while facing increasing publication fees or subscription costs. The rapid proliferation of journals has intensified reviewer fatigue, reduced the availability of qualified referees, and contributed to declining peer-review quality. These conditions, combined with status biases and insufficient editorial oversight, seriously risk to undermine the reliability of published research. The expansion of predatory journals and exploitative open-access models further erodes trust in scientific communication. In a publish-or-perish environment driven by bibliometric evaluation, there is a proliferation of low-quality and fraudulent research, amplified by AI-generated content. This dynamic benefits commercial publishers, whose profit margins have grown sharply, while draining financial resources from academic institutions. The resulting "vampirization" of the research system exacerbates global inequities and contributes to an exponential increase in publications with limited scientific or societal impact. To counteract this trajectory, we propose that scientists prioritise journals governed by scientific societies or public institutions, and those that adopt ethical publishing practices, especially avoiding predatory publishers. Collective actions-such as mass resignations from editorial boards in response to unreasonable publication charges-are presented as effective strategies. Institutions are encouraged to shift evaluation criteria from quantity to quality, discourage unethical practices, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in conservation science. We acknowledge the inherent imperfections of past systems but emphasise that the current drift poses significant risks, especially for fields informing environmental policy making. Declining primary research quality may cascade into misguided decision-making at all scales. We call for systemic reform, including an international accreditation system for journals and publishers based on transparent ethical standards and overseen by public research agencies. Ensuring access to reliable, high-quality scientific information is essential for supporting conservation, sustainability, and the broader societal role of science. |
| format | Artículo científico |
| id | pubmed_42277979 |
| institution | PubMed |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Research integrity and peer review |
| record_format | pubmed |
| spellingShingle | Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health. Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health. Paolo, Guidetti Nike, Bianchi Carlo John, Baxter Nane, Pelke Charles-François, Boudouresque The paper examines structural distortions in contemporary scientific publishing and their implications for research quality, equity, ethics and environmental conservation. Despite being largely publicly funded, scientists continue to provide unpaid labour as reviewers and editors while facing increasing publication fees or subscription costs. The rapid proliferation of journals has intensified reviewer fatigue, reduced the availability of qualified referees, and contributed to declining peer-review quality. These conditions, combined with status biases and insufficient editorial oversight, seriously risk to undermine the reliability of published research. The expansion of predatory journals and exploitative open-access models further erodes trust in scientific communication. In a publish-or-perish environment driven by bibliometric evaluation, there is a proliferation of low-quality and fraudulent research, amplified by AI-generated content. This dynamic benefits commercial publishers, whose profit margins have grown sharply, while draining financial resources from academic institutions. The resulting "vampirization" of the research system exacerbates global inequities and contributes to an exponential increase in publications with limited scientific or societal impact. To counteract this trajectory, we propose that scientists prioritise journals governed by scientific societies or public institutions, and those that adopt ethical publishing practices, especially avoiding predatory publishers. Collective actions-such as mass resignations from editorial boards in response to unreasonable publication charges-are presented as effective strategies. Institutions are encouraged to shift evaluation criteria from quantity to quality, discourage unethical practices, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in conservation science. We acknowledge the inherent imperfections of past systems but emphasise that the current drift poses significant risks, especially for fields informing environmental policy making. Declining primary research quality may cascade into misguided decision-making at all scales. We call for systemic reform, including an international accreditation system for journals and publishers based on transparent ethical standards and overseen by public research agencies. Ensuring access to reliable, high-quality scientific information is essential for supporting conservation, sustainability, and the broader societal role of science. |
| title | Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health. |
| url | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42277979/ |