Thus the “paper factory” business poisons the scientific community

Imagine being an esteemed academic who directs some scientific journals of a prestigious international publishing house.

You turn on the computer, browse through the e-mails of the day and find one in English, the translated text of which is as follows:

Dear Professor XXXX,

I’m from mainland China, sorry for interrupting!

On behalf of some young scholars from mainland China, I would like to ask for your help. We create a suitable academic growth environment for them.

As universities in our country usually require young scholars to produce research results in a very short period of time, they are forced to choose searches that can produce results quicklywhich affects their ability to do research that they enjoy and their love of academia. For example, universities require young scholars to be assessed every three years during their tenure phase, which means that they must produce research results and start publishing articles within 1-2 years, as they have to reserve time for the review phase, to choose a new journal if the article is rejected, and so on.

So, I hope you can help them when they have manuscripts that could be published in the journal that you edit and I hope it can help them. Of course, my intention is not to lower your academic standards for them, but to help them not delay reviewing their articles on the assumption that they meet the academic standards of the journal.. At the same time, I also hope that when they submit their articles to her journal, she can help them not be ignored just for not being accomplished scholars.

They need your help and your help is very important to them, since it can help them grow better and choose the research sector that really interests them.

We are very grateful for your help and will offer a thank-you fee of $3,000 per article. I know it’s rude to say that, and I really didn’t mean to offend you. I am really grateful to her from the bottom of my heart and I don’t know what to say; so, i can only mention the thank you fee!

I apologize again for my rudeness! Please accept my apologies!

Best regards,

Allen Zahid

Now, the friend who forwarded me the original message is someone above suspicion, but think about this: the journals he chairs collectively publish over a thousand articles each year. An agreement such as the one proposed could give rise to the idea that, if implemented on a large scale, it would lead to (strictly untraceable) millionaire earnings.

The magazines in question would be affected, because they are good quality magazines – perhaps this is also the reason for the generous offer; but, of course, the way metrics work, for at least a few years they would hold up to a robust percentage of articles resulting from the corruption agreement, before the bibliometric indexes signal their decadence. What is more, not certain forfeiture, because even fraudulent articles can be cited a lot, and indeed the purchase of packets of citations is often part of the offer of those who send similar mails.

But who is it that accosts people like my friend, to produce corrupt business like the one in question?

In general, these are “paper factories”, i.e. companies that thrive on the margins of the (sick) market for scientific publication and the related bibliometric evaluation of scientific productivity, offering as a product to those who want to make a career ready-made manuscripts, of no real relevance when not clearly fraudulent, perhaps ready to be published – often in predatory magazines, but increasingly also in accredited magazines. If someone wanted to know how to do it in the latter case, without going to invoke the low quality of the reviews that are increasingly the norm, just consider types of corrupt agreements such as the one proposed to my friend and which we discuss here.

And in this specific case, can we have proof that it is not a joke, or perhaps a trap by someone who wanted to damage the reputation of a magazine and its editor in chief?

The e-mail address provided for any replies to the message is what gives us the proof we are looking for: [email protected] This address is exactly the same as used in the case of such a letter in the name of one Allen Tang (instead of Allen Zahid), who proposed the “deal” to a German researcher, editor of an MDPI journal who reported the matter to the director of the journal, Professor Marc A. Rosen, but not without having replied to the original message inviting him to submit a work, to give impetus and uncover the cards of his interlocutor. And here is the answer that came to the German professor, translated by me for your convenience:

“Dear Dr. [xxx]Thanks for your quick response!

In order not to waste too much time, I will be direct. Please forgive me for any offense. Every month, some authors want me to help publish articles in the journals that have a special, so I look forward to collaborating with her.

The envisaged cooperation process is as follows:

1. The article will be sent to you for review before sending. Only if he thinks it meets the submission standard will we let the author actually submit the manuscript.

2. After the article has passed the journal’s preliminary review and reached you, please invite your closest colleagues to act as reviewers as soon as possible. Comments from reviewers could be friendly, of course provided that the manuscript meets quality standards.

3. After receiving the revised manuscript from the author, please review and submit your opinion on the publication of the article as soon as possible.

I believe that according to our cooperation process, we can not only guarantee the quality of the article, but also help the author publish the article faster and more conveniently. Of course, the author will also thank you for your help. In order not to waste too much of your time, I’ll just say it. If you are offended, please accept my apologies. US$500-800 will be paid for each item. Or the author can add his name to the article to increase his academic popularity, for example by adding his name to the second or third place in the list of authors. The choice of the above way of thanking is up to you.

We look forward to your reply!

Sincerely yours, Allen Tang”

Now, perhaps due to the lower impact factor, the offer in the case of the Germans appears modest, compared to the one received by my interlocutor; but here it is interesting to point out the diffusion of the phenomenon, which, in correspondence with the ever wider invasion of scientific garbage that finds its place in the magazines under siege of the “paper factories”, explains at least in part why it is time to separate the market and evaluation of research for funding and career purposes from bibliometric evaluation.

The scientific community is poisoning itselfby refusing to abandon a sick market and valuation system; it is time for it to regain its central role, and stop behaving at the same time as producer and customer, allowing others to make huge sums of money for little or no effort.

In the meantime, what I have always maintained applies: a scientific publication, even in prestigious journals, must today be considered the beginning of a discussion on the data presented, and not the arrival point and the final proof of the validity of a theory.