Over the past few years, publishing has becoming increasingly complex with new journals and business models, new technology, new models of peer review and new ways to collaborate and disseminate research. Alongside this, the pressure on academics to publish has become increasingly intense. Publications have always been the currency of academia—the key to tenure, grant renewal and promotion. Now, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that publications can have direct monetary value in terms of increased salaries, bonuses and jobs.

Publishing is built on trust—from the first part of an idea for a study through to the final published work. This trust involves multiple interactions between authors, publishers, editors and reviewers. However, we know unfortunately that trust can be misplaced. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [1] is just one of a number of organizations of publishers, journals and institutions that have worked for many years to put guidelines in place for everyone involved in publishing to follow. But, in an era where the rewards for publishing appear to outweigh the risk of being caught, more and more complex methods of deception are being developed, and these have spawned an industry—“academic article brokering”.

Two particular scams that have come to light recently highlight a number of the complexities that exist as a result of the incentive structure and international nature of publishing, which these brokers have exploited. The first scam concerns reviews that were fabricated. This is not a new problem in that isolated incidents of fake reviewers came to light several years ago in cases presented at COPE forums [2]. However, an investigation by BioMed Central [3] has shown a much more systematic attempt to deceive. BioMed Central uncovered evidence of repeated and inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review process of several journals through the suggestion of fabricated peer reviewers for papers. The fabricated reviewer addresses were provided on submission by either authors or more likely by agencies offering language-editing and submitting the papers on the authors’ behalf. The peer reviewers suggested looked like real people: for example in many cases, they had the names of known researchers but with fabricated email addresses. Based on the judgement of the journal editors, sometimes review invitations were then sent to the fake addresses by the journals, and credible reviews were submitted that led to papers being accepted by the journals in good faith. The work done to uncover this deception was substantial and led to the realisation that this was likely to be not the work of individuals working alone but had become a lucrative business practice carried out by companies that manage publishing for authors who were desperate to publish in English language journals. Such fraud may extend beyond simply supplying fake reviewers: similar organizations are thought to sell ready-written papers to authors desperate for publication [4, 5]. These actions by companies that subvert the review process are especially damaging for companies that are working legitimately to aid authors, and which may be tarnished by association.

BioMed Central is to be commended for their actions in bringing this set of fraudulent practices to light. After discussions at COPE, other journals have subsequently discovered that they were potential targets, for example by finding that large numbers of fake reviewer emails being registered within their own journals’ databases. More retractions due to fabricated reviewers may follow if necessary to correct the published literature. There may yet be further varieties of this type of fraud, which are currently being investigated.

A second fraud is arguably even more concerning and may be harder to counteract. Whereas the issue identified by BioMed Central involved fraud at the article level, a fraud at the journal level has been identified by the indexing service Ei (Engineering Index), run by Elsevier, which appears to involve a wholesale takeover of journals to serve as uncritical publication avenues for a wide range of papers [6]. The fraud came to light during a review by Elsevier of journals that Ei indexes—which is considered a mark of quality for a journal, and one which makes it more likely that articles published within a given journal will count towards promotion. The anomaly noted was that a particular journal had increased the numbers of articles published and moreover was publishing across a very wide range of subjects. Publications included many single-author papers on topics far beyond the journal’s scope and in areas where the editorial board had no obvious expertise, making it highly unlikely the papers had gone through any valid peer review process. Moreover, when Ei announced that the journal would be delisted, the journal immediately added several whole issues, presumably in an attempt to get the papers published before the ban took effect.

What can be done to counter these types of fraudulent behaviour? First, it is essential for the journals or publishers who are targeted that they move swiftly once an issue is identified. In the case of the BioMed Central, they have worked to correct the scientific record with retraction of all the identified articles. In addition, BioMed Central is following up with all affected authors’ institutions. In the case of Ei, action to remove the journal was conducted promptly, but whether this can be done quickly enough is arguable, since such delistings are not immediate. It also seems unlikely that the journal will retract the papers in question, which leaves a worrying question mark over their status in the literature. Both BioMed Central and Ei have been diligent in bringing these issues to light, including briefing COPE and related organisations. In addition, it is essential to highlight these issues more widely so that anyone who is likely to be affected will be aware of such possible scams.

But the overall rationale for this behaviour will not simply be addressed by shutting down or delisting rogue journals here and there. Even if one fraudulent activity is identified and stopped, others will arise. Fraud in publishing is almost as old as publishing itself, and although technology certainly makes some types of fraud more easy to perpetrate, it does not, per se, cause it.

Behind virtually every issue in publication ethics are just a handful of causes. Unusually for fraud or misconduct in society more widely, the financial rewards, or at least immediate ones, are not the most prominent cause but instead there are other underlying motives. These are related to the career requirements of the authors—be it for promotion, tenure, or even a simple first position in a lab or hospital. Coupled with that are eventual financial rewards in the form of better salaries and sometimes direct financial payments, but these are often rather secondary incentives.

Therefore, until those responsible for the incentive structure review what they require of their academics, these academics will continue to either feel pressured either to game the system themselves (as a study in the UK has found, [7]) or, more alarmingly, turn to corrupt businesses who will do it for them. This is a problem for everyone involved in academia. We need an honest discussion about how to address it at both local and global levels that encompasses everyone, and at every step, from when academics first consider a career, right through to the moment of publication in a journal.