I have to admit, as an academic who is frequently frustrated by predatory journals as well as by the inability to extricate myself from some journal and conference mailing lists, I thoroughly resonate with the paper "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List," which I can only assume was submitted in fit of rage to the predatory International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology back in 2014. The paper, which repeats the phrase "Get me off your fucking mailing list" for ten pages, and even throws in a figure or two reiterating the sentiment, was originally written in 2005 by American researchers David Mazières and Eddie Kohle, who would send it as a reply to unsolicited conference invitations.
Then in 2014 Peter Vamplew, an Australian computer science who had encountered the paper as it made the rounds in various academic circles, sent the paper to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology after getting spammed by the journal to submit a paper (for a hefty publishing fee, of course, which is what predatory journals do). According to Vox, Vamplew:
thought the editors might simply open and read it. Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as "excellent" — and requested a fee of $150.
Vox points out that while this particular incident is "pretty hilarious," it points to bigger issues in academic and scientific publishing and the growth of "online-only, for-profit operations that take advantage of inexperienced researchers under pressure to publish their work in any outlet that seems superficially legitimate." These journals differ from legitimate journals because they don't conduct peer reviews—heck, some clearly don't even read the papers! These predatory journals also require payment from the author to be published, whereas legitimate journals don't.
Sadly, and unsurprisingly, more than a decade later, the problem of predatory publishing and the accompanying issue of junk science have just gotten worse. Last week, Dr. Katie Suleta, who is Research Director for Graduate Medical Education at George Washington University and a science writer and communicator, wrote a terrific article for the American Council on Science and Health on the dangers of junk science. In that piece, she describes a "growing epidemic" of junk science that is "propped up by predatory publishers, ignored conflicts of interest, and research so bad it refuses to die, even after retraction."
She also shares a great resource, "Retraction Watch," that tracks the problem of junk science articles being cited by other researchers even long after they have been retracted—what she calls "zombie citations." Suleta explains that Retraction Watch:
…keeps a running tally of the top 10 most highly cited retracted papers and the number of times they've been cited before and after retraction. Spoiler alert: some papers have been cited post-retraction over 1,000 times. That is junk science, marked as junk and allowed to permeate scientific discourse after it was officially declared null and void. This junk science continues influencing scientific inquiry, hypotheses, and popular opinion.
I went to Retraction Watch to see the current top ten most highly cited retracted papers, and what I saw frustrated and angered me, although, sadly, it didn't surprise me. Among the top ten is that infamous (and terrible!) study attempting to link autism and vaccines, conducted by Andrew Wakefield—described by The Guardian as a "disgraced anti-vaxxer"—and published in The Lancet in 1998, which was later retracted by the journal. It's clear that even though the incredibly flawed research was thoroughly debunked and retracted, it is still being shared widely in the scientific literature—it's been cited over 1000 times since it was retracted. And, even if some or even many of those citations mention the retraction, Wakefield's research continues to cultivate anti-vaccine sentiments and actions among parents—which are further stoked by the embracing of Wakefield by Trump and the MAHA movement. The Guardian states that "the anti-MMR views he seeded around the world led to many parents shunning the vaccine and outbreaks of measles wherever anyone had heard Wakefield's creed"—outbreaks that are currently "spiking" in the United States, Canada, and across the globe.
I appreciate the important work that Retraction Watch is doing. I'm also impressed with Dr. Katie Suleta's work and encourage everyone to follow her on Instagram and to seek out her articles, especially her work exposing and debunking the MAHA movement ("Will the Trump Administration Be a Dangerous Ally to the Wellness Industry?") and the dietary supplements and vitamins industries ("A Natural Deception: 3 Marketing Myths the Supplement Industry Wants You to Swallow" and "Dietary Supplements and Protein Powders Fall Under a 'Wild West' of Products that Necessitate Caveats and Caution").
And don't forget to go read "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" here.
