Pretend Publication

Science and engineering rely upon the publication system, journals and conferences, to share results and to support a system of peer review. For all its faults, and despite business models that can be questioned, this system has served these roles reasonably well. It has done so, essentially, by focussing on the needs of the scientific 'consumer' - the person who reads and possibly uses the published papers. These consumers want to be assured that the papers are interesting, well written and technically sound. The publication system tries to deliver this.

There are however some journals and conferences that actively subvert peer review and that exploit the forms of the publication system in order to further commercial or personal advantage. The hallmark of these venues is that they seek to serve the needs of authors not the readers. They pay no regard to quality or the integrity of the scientific information they purvey, rather they seek to facilitate what -appears- to be scientific publication. The best example of this in my area of work are the IADIS and WSEAS series of conference and associated journals. There are others notably WORLDCOMP.

What is extremely disturbing is that the professional societies, who should know better, such as the IEEE, have sponsored meetings or allowed their brand to be used for meetings that have standards that place them on a par with these venues.

The very worst conferences do not require or expect authors to attend to present their papers and the meetings themselves are effectively elaborate fakes. You can be a plenary speaker at such an event if you pay the attendance fees. Paid keynote speakers add, perhaps inadvertently, a veneer of respectability. Journals that conduct no meaningful peer review but ask for large open access fees to be paid by the author are on the rise (a list is here).

There has been some internet comment on these venues (increasingly drowned out by spam postings) and there are several, widely publicised, examples of deliberately nonsensical papers being accepted after a supposed review. These intended to expose the venues as shams. The condemnation has however been aimed at the organisers, who are exploiting the demand for commercial gain and, perhaps the prestige of being program chair or whatever. What is less commented upon are those who publish in such places and their motivations.

There are certainly a few wet-behind-the-ears doctoral students, with inattentive supervisors, who have been suckered into submitting an 'apprentice piece'. But for the most part the papers come from academics in third-tier institutions or from universities in less developed academic systems outside Europe and the US. This may seem harsh but is accurate. Most of these academics are publishing because they are obliged to do so by the places in which they work. An 'international' or 'journal' publication is an essential tick in a box for promotion or more simply access to travel funds. The system is bent towards adherence to academic form over substance.

If we are to rid ourselves of these deceptive venues it will not be by exposing and condemning the organisers, they are, with the possible exception of the IEEE, beyond redemption, but by systematically discouraging people from submitting. Which means we must both reach out to the systems that drive publication and educate the community. We will probably need to find alternatives: mentoring systems associated with major conferences are a good start as are doctoral consortia. More radical ideas such as 'cadet conferences' could be explored. Not every researcher can or should be required to do original work. Reviews, replications and research-informed teaching are better than bad papers in essentially bogus venues. Ultimately however we need to stem the tide of poor quality work and assert the consumer over the producer interest in publication. These conferences and journals pollute the system and bring science into disrepute.