Publishers need more help to combat malicious academic networks

As manager of peer review and research integrity at IOP Publishing, the rise of malicious academic networks is making the work I oversee considerably harder.

It seems that more and more academics are working together to sell authorship or manipulate citations or peer review. And while there’s much I’m grateful for in my work, I find myself wishing for more support to combat such misconduct.

Let’s start with the gratitude. I work for a purpose-led publisher that focuses substantial resources and training on protecting research integrity. We’re also fortunate to manage peer review for our proprietary journals with an internal team. This gives us a tremendous amount of control and access to crucial information. For instance, having all our editorial contacts in a single database is priceless. It allows us to instantly identify connections – whether a reviewer for one journal is an author on another, for instance. This can make a big difference and really speed our work up when we’re looking at networks.

I’m also grateful for the help we receive from the sleuthing community. Their work across the corpus of literature reveals patterns and problems, helping to expose threats to research integrity and clean up science.

The tools for detecting malicious networks have proliferated in the last three years, too. While the sheer choice can feel overwhelming, testing and collaborating with various suppliers has been eye-opening, and I’m hopeful that these tools will become even more effective over time. For any new tech to truly succeed, it must work seamlessly at scale. A great example of this is the STM Integrity Hub, which streamlines integrations by connecting directly with editorial systems on one side and technology providers on the other. New solutions must be embedded within submission systems to identify malpractice as early as possible in the workflow. Time is of the essence, and adding friction – such as requiring editorial staff to jump between systems or to copy and paste data – does not enhance the author experience.

So here’s what I wish for: submission system providers, please develop your APIs and collaborate with the new integrity tools entering the market; and emerging start-ups, consider integrating your innovations with existing systems – it will help your products reach users faster and allow us collectively to build a more efficient and trustworthy publishing ecosystem.

I’d also like better industry guidance. Organisations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the US-based National Information Standards Organization (NISO) have provided invaluable tips on things like how to identify peer review manipulation and how to properly handle corrections. The principles they share are incredibly helpful when addressing suspected or confirmed misconduct. However, they don’t say much specifically about malicious networks and what we can do about them. For instance, there’s no guidance about what to do if you find citation manipulation in a published manuscript.

Issues like this can have significant repercussions for publishers. Even when citations are removed from a paper, they often continue to influence metrics, making it difficult to fully correct the damage. Retraction is rarely an option, especially if citation manipulation is the sole concern with the paper. This leaves editors and publishers in a no-win situation, facing criticism regardless of their decision. Clearer, stronger guidance is needed to empower us to take appropriate action in such cases.

In addition, I can’t emphasise enough that we need better ways to verify who is behind an email address. ORCID – free, unique, persistent identifier for individual authors – is a great leap in the right direction, and IOPP has made having one mandatory for all authors and reviewers this year. It’s not enough, however. The recent story of someone’s identity being used in a fake peer review scam underscores just how easy it still is to game the system. And the fact that I just had to upload my driver’s licence to set up parental controls on my son’s Roblox online gaming account makes our industry seem woefully unsophisticated.

I feel very hopeful about the STM Task-and-Finish Group, which is taking inspiration from other industries to tackle this issue. The main concern for us as a publisher, though, is that any potential solution could be a barrier for genuine researchers working with us – there is huge global variance in identity verification. Education and inclusivity need to be a part of whatever solution is found.

Finally, as an industry, we need to focus on meaningful and visible consequences for unethical behaviour. I find it alarming how often I’ve seen authors with records of misconduct continue continue to be published, funded and promoted without scrutiny. While any response must be measured and proportional to the offence, I believe it’s crucial for institutions and funders to scrutinise the track records of their researchers – both for red flags of misconduct and for histories that seem too good to be true.

Perhaps all the external scrutiny that science is currently receiving will help. While it can feel uncomfortable when individual publishers or titles are called out, coverage from external outlets puts pressure on the wider academic and publishing world to take action.

Nuance is essential, and there should always be room for explanation and redemption. However, when major issues are overlooked or ignored, it sets a dangerous precedent, inadvertently encouraging other researchers to cut ethical corners to achieve similar recognition.

Kim Eggleton is IOP Publishing’s head of peer review and research integrity.