[stanrivers]

“ It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it.”

Well… then start reporting it with names publicly and to authorities…

[kashunstva]

> "every journal publisher and every editor will tell you..."

As much as I disdain academic fraud, I'm also deeply suspicious of statements about "every" editor. So I asked my wife, would is a lead editor of a major scientific journal. Her experience is nothing of the kind. Crappy paper-mill papers, plagiarism, etc.? Yes. Flat-out bribes, no.

[a123b456c]

Same. I serve in an editorial role for a top journal in my field. I know some foreign universities pay six-figure bonuses to faculty who publish in my journal. I have never been offered anything like a bribe.

To my ears, 'every' is hyperbole.

[InSteady]

In addition to the "every publisher" claim, he also states, "And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well." However, he only provides evidence that something is seriously amiss at Hindawi.

The author links to two articles that detail some really shady behavior, but after reading them it doesn't look like he is adding anything new to the discussion beyond speculation and outrage. Well, that, and using his name and platform to amplify the message that it is time to get serious about fraud in scientific publications (which is laudable).

This is a serious problem, with the linked articles detailing brazen advertisement of payment for publication by people and organizations who appear to be associated with paper mills. I don't think the takeaway is that we should immediately throw the baby out with the bathwater, but this definitely needs a lot of urgent and sustained attention.

[sickofparadox]

3 or 4 cases of PHDs losing their positions because of this garbage would likely go a long way towards discouraging these frauds.

[ramraj07]

No it won’t - the vast majority of the perpetrators, perhaps rightfully, will think that doesn’t apply to their case because of their instititional politics.

[canadiantim]

I think it's more how the incentives in the system are set up. Unless the incentives change (publish or perish, gatekeeping journals, etc.), then nothing will change.

[chaxor]

This is the real answer.

Many of the problems in academia are due to publish or perish. Very many of them.

[eli_gottlieb]

Three or four cases of entire laboratories or departments being shut down for fraud would make a dent.

[rcbdev]

Just look at all the high profile academic fraud cases in politics - Von Der Leyen (President of the EU Commission, plagiarized half of her dissertation, zero consequences), Aschbacher (Former Minister in Austria, her thesis was filled with grammatical and logical errors that would've shocked a high school teacher, gets to keep her PhD), Voshmgirs (Founding Director of the Institute for Cryptoeconomics at the Vienna University of Economics, the only one who might actually lose her PhD because of this)

As long as the general public does not care nothing will change.

[nativeit]

> And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well. Any publisher where people are willing to look the other way.

[bowsamic]

Authorities? I don't think it's illegal. Also I get roughly 5 offers of "bribes" (of the "special issue" variety) a day, it's an overwhelming situation.

[albino_yak]

Exactly. Bribing editors to publish your paper is unethical, it's not breaking any laws. The word "bribe" the has the connotation of secretly paying government officials, which is illegal. But authors paying editors? I don't think that's legally viewed as any different for scientific publications than it is for fiction, where pay-to-publish is an accepted practice. (Disclaimer - IANAL)

[rahimnathwani]

A bribe doesn't have to involve a government official.

A bribe requires three entities:

- the one paying the bribe (in this case the paper's author)

- the one receiving the bribe (in this case the journal editor)

- the one that actually provides the benefit (in this case the company that owns the journal)

What makes it a bribe is that, instead of paying the entity that's providing the service, you're paying an agent of the entity.

If you pay Harvard $1MM to admit your child, that's not a bribe. It's just a transaction. If you pay a Harvard admissions officer $1MM (to their personal account) so that they admit your child, that's a bribe.

[chaxor]

Ah. So,

If you send a check to the editor and say "for the journal": you call it a publishing fee.

If you send a check to the editor and say "for you to give to the journal": you call it a bribe.

Like that?

[rahimnathwani]

No.

Check made out to the publisher of the journal -> publishing fee.

Check made out to the editor -> bribe.

[haswell]

The definition of what constitutes bribery is not limited to legal matters or government officials.

The legal vs. ethical distinction helps determine what can be done about the bribery, but does not change the nature of the act itself. It’s just that bribing government officials has been (appropriately) deemed problematic enough to make it a legal issue vs. just an ethical one.

This scandal may very well provide the impetus to make this kind of bribery illegal too, because of the degree of harm and public interest in that harm.

[theGnuMe]

Bribes are illegal in the USA.

[Macha]

The legal definition of bribery though is:

> Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Scientific journals are not public institutions (though maybe they should be) so their editors aren't holding public duty. Legal duty also seems a stretch, though maybe possible depending on how the editor's contracts are worded. I suspect they don't say very much detail on job responsibilities though.

So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.

[haswell]

> The legal definition of bribery though is

This might sound pedantic, but this might be better framed as: The form of bribery that is illegal is the kind that involves offering, giving, soliciting…an individual holding a public or legal duty.

Bribery as a concept stands on its own, outside of the legal system. The legal system defines what forms of bribery will get you in legal trouble, but does not have a monopoly on bribery itself.

To your point, that means there are forms of bribery that may be technically legal.

[Macha]

Yes, the difference between illegal and immoral is one I've myself tried to explain to HN people often enough (though more usually in the context of people trying to argue "It's not illegal, why are you complaining about it", when a company does something immoral). That is why I had the final paragraph:

> So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.

[kmeisthax]

If you ask SCOTUS, some forms of bribery are actually constitutionally protected free speech!

[shkkmo]

It is absolutely illegal.

Many states have laws that explicitly target commercial bribery. Even where those laws don't exist, various fraud laws can also apply.

I don't know if there is specific precedent here, but your broad assertions are quite incorrect as even a cursory google search will reveal.

[shoemakersteve]

While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal, there are many places (maybe most?) where it's not. Presumably due to the fact that it's near impossible to prove in court unless they were giving out receipts that said "bribe for business deal" on them or something. Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."

[worthless-trash]

Where did you get that definition ?

[pvaldes]

Science keeps a lot of traditions that would be illegal in most fields.

A company wouldn't dare to say publicly "People older than 30 Years can't apply to our job" or "People from NY will be favored, we will not hire people from Louisiana". I see equivalent claims in the Academic field aaaall the time; is pissing on the constitution, and nobody fucking cares.

[Maken]

Can't you call it lobbying and get away with it?

[theGnuMe]

You can give a maximum donation to a politician! :) Or fund a superPac.. legal that way.

[shkkmo]

A fiction editor and a journal editor make very different assertions about what their role is and what their product is. A journal editor taking a bribe could violate claims and promises they have made for commercial gain and could thus constitute fraud, even without any applicable commercial bribery laws in their states.

[6510]

Take the money and publish a retraction disclosing why. ....what to do with the money?

[chaxor]

I know a lab that tried to publish names along with scores for the likelihood that they were h-index hacking. It's a very popular thing to do for more well known scientists.

Unfortunately legal teams were very discouraging to do so and publishing that type of thing is hard, so it didn't happen.