In the last few days, a bunch of people on Bluesky discovered a paper that has been out for a few months, “Practice of neurosurgery on Saturn.”
Looking through the social media posts about this paper, a lot of people played that favourite academic game, “How did this get published?” Many people suggested it’s a hoax. Academic hoaxes are a particular interest of mine, and I am always looking for the next entry in the Stinging the Predators collection of academic hoaxes.
I didn’t think this was a hoax? Hoaxers usually reveal the prank almost immediately, and this paper had been out for months.
My hunch seems to have been correct. The lead author has an extensive Google Scholar page and said on PubPeer: “it is clear that the document focuses on fictitious and hypothetical situations.” I am not clear about what the point of the article is, but never mind. It’s filed under “Letters to the editor,” which I think is an arena where researchers and journals can be allowed a little leeway.
But this is a good example of something that I think is decidedly lacking in many discussions about academic publishing and academic integrity. In none of the posts I read did anyone do any actual investigation.
Nobody looked to see if the authors were real.
Nobody emailed the authors. It seems to just be happenstance that the lead author saw the PubPeer comments and replied.
Nobody emailed the journal (although editors are often notoriously slow to reply to these sorts of things).
In collecting academic hoaxes, I’ve noticed a similar pattern. People create hoaxes to show that there are bad journals out there that accept anything for money. But by and large, that is where it stops.
People know predatory journals are out there, but nobody is actively digging behind
the scenes to see how they work. How do people decide to start running
them? How much money do they make? Why would a scam artist only in it
for the money do apparently counterintuitive things like waiving the
article processing charges? (There are multiple instances of that in the Stinging the Predators collection.)
A recent paper came out that made a similar point about the lack of investigation about paper mills (Byrne et al. 2024).
Academics treat too many of these problems around dubious publishing as some sort of black box that cannot be opened. They only study the outputs. I think someone needs to approach these sorts of problems more like an investigative journalist or an undercover law enforcement officer might.
Go in and find the people who are doing all this dishonest stuff. Get them talking. I want hear what some of the people organizing predatory journals or paper mills or citations rings have to say. Why do they do what they do?
I don’t expect academics themselves to do this. This kind of investigative journalism is expensive and time consuming and being done less and less. But without this kind of insight, we will probably never be able to understand and curb these problems.
References
Byrne JA, Abalkina A, Akinduro-Aje O, Christopher J, Eaton SE, Joshi N,
Scheffler U, Wise NH, Wright J. 2024. A call for research to address the
threat of paper mills. PLoS Biology 22(11): e3002931.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002931
Mostofi K, Peyravi M. 2024. Practice of neurosurgery on Saturn. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 122: 110139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2024.110139
External links
PubPeer commentary on “Practice of neurosurgery on Saturn”
Altmetric page for “Practice of neurosugery on Saturn”
Google Scholar page for Keyvan Mostofi
Photo by Steve Hill on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence.
