Vanity Journals, Conflicts of Interest, and the Quest for Research Integrity
November 2024 has been another intriguing month for the forensic scientometrics community.
A particular gem of a sentence from a paper in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy has been making the rounds on social media and PubPeer, prompting lively discussions.
My colleague, Hélène Draux has citation and network analysis examples of the references on her blog Research Musings. While the paper itself is fascinating, what stands out to me is the journal and the affiliations involved - a point neatly summed up by Mark van Loosdrecht.
This case presents an example of problematic practices that some journals enable. that of overlapping financial, political, or ideological interests that undermine the integrity of scholarly publishing.
David Michaels aptly refers to such venues as "vanity journals." These journals fail to meet the rigorous ethical and methodological standards expected of credible scientific outlets. Instead, they often serve as vehicles for advancing the vested corporate, ideological, or political interests of editors, peer reviewers, and authors. I’ve written about and explained conflicts of interest at this level on a different topic (no less controversial) here.
Vanity Journals and Their Role in Undermining Science
In theory, peer-reviewed journals represent the gold standard in research dissemination. Getting ideas published should be a merit-based process that reflects adherence to rigorous methodologies, robust peer reviews, and uncompromising ethical standards. However, vanity journals exploit the pressure to publish by offering a shortcut.
Here’s how the traditional publishing ecosystem is supposed to work:
The Publication: A credible journal is expected to follow ethical publishing guidelines and uphold rigorous peer-review standards.
Journal Editors: Editors oversee the quality and integrity of publications, ensuring compliance with ethical standards.
Peer Reviewers: Qualified reviewers evaluate submissions for methodological soundness and unbiased results.
Then researchers cite papers supporting their work, which (should) build off of sound science. In this case, the citations were forced and meaningless to the paper and the authors kindly called that out.
But in the case of vanity journals, these roles are compromised or outright ignored. In this instance, the citations themselves raise serious questions. They appear forced and irrelevant to the paper’s content — a rare case where the authors even called attention to this in their own work.
Why It Matters
When journals abandon their role as gatekeepers of quality and integrity, the consequences extend far beyond individual publications. Such failures erode public trust in science, facilitate disinformation, and distort the citation ecosystem.
Vanity journals turn peer-reviewed research from a tool for advancing knowledge into a mechanism for amplifying unvetted, and often self-serving, ideas. When checks and balances are compromised — whether through oversight or intent — the publication process becomes a breeding ground for manipulation.
Final Thoughts
When checks and balances fail – or are intentionally compromised – the publication process becomes a breeding ground for manipulation. When journals facilitate conflicts of interest or prioritise their own interests over quality, they become enablers of disinformation rather than gatekeepers of scientific integrity.
For those of us in forensic scientometrics, exposing and addressing these practices is not just an academic exercise. It’s a necessary step toward preserving the credibility and impact of science itself.