Publishing Research Quarterly

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 208–219 | Cite as

Stings, Hoaxes and Irony Breach the Trust Inherent in Scientific Publishing

  • Aceil Al-Khatib
  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva


Trust has traditionally been a cornerstone of traditional science publishing. However, events over the past few years, an increase in the number of retractions and the fortification of the vigilant science movement, coupled with better tools to detect and report or publicize misconduct and/or errors in the literature, has revealed that this pillar of trust has in fact not always been present, or has been severely abused or compromised. Further disintegration in the integrity of academic publishing by no or almost non-existent peer review in so-called “predatory” open access publishers has given reason to increasingly distrust the accuracy of the published academic record. Finally, a topic that tends to invoke mixed reactions, but which we feel adds to the overall level of mistrust and erosion of ethical values in science publishing, is the use of stings, hoaxes and irony academic journals. We focus on six such cases, providing a rationale why such studies undermine trust and integrity and why such bogus publications are best left to blogs or non-academic forms of publishing science-related topics.


False information Lack of integrity Loss of trust Misconduct Misleading 


  1. 1.
    Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):145–52. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohannon J. Who’s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60–5. doi: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohannon J. I fooled millions into thinking chocolate helps weight loss. Here’s how. 2015. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  4. 4.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International Ethical Guidelines for BiomedicalResearch Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS. 2002. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  5. 5.
    Davis S. Scientific journal publishes fake study on whether mommy boo boo kisses really work. 2015. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  6. 6.
    Djuiric DZ, Delilbasic B, Radisic S. Evaluation of transformative hermeneutic heuristics for processing random data. International Journal of Very Important Multidisciplinary Research, 18(6), 98–102 (retracted). 2013.
  7. 7.
    Djuric D. Penetrating the omerta of predatory publishing: the Romanian connection. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21:183–202. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9521-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dyrud MA. Predatory online technical journals: a question of ethics. In: Proceedings of 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, paper ID #8413. 2014. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  9. 9.
    Ehrenberg R. Attempt to shame journalists with chocolate study is shameful. 2015. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  10. 10.
    Eisen M. I confess, I wrote the arsenic DNA paper to expose flaws in peer-review at subscription based journals. 2013. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  11. 11.
    Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Errami M, Garner H. A tale of two citations. Nature. 2008;451:397–9. doi: 10.1038/451397a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferguson C, Marcus A, Oransky I. Publishing: the peer-review scam. Nature. 2014;515(7528):480–2. doi: 10.1038/515480a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fish S. Professor Sokal bad joke. The New York Times. 1996. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  15. 15.
    Friedman DB, Tanner A, Rose ID. Health journalists’ perceptions of their communities and implications for the delivery of health information in the news. J Community Health. 2014;39(2):378–85. doi: 10.1007/s10900-013-9774-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henrich N, Holmes B. Web news readers’ comments: towards developing a methodology for using on-line comments in social inquiry. Journal of Media and Communication Studies. 2013;5(1):1–4. doi: 10.5897/JMCS11.103.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Committee of Medical Journal. Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2015. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  18. 18.
    McKinnon M. Chocolate diet paper won’t be retracted, because it was never published. 2015 Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  19. 19.
    Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali HR, Herman E, Tenopir C, Volentine R, Allard S, Levine K. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Publish. 2015;28(1):15–21. doi: 10.1087/20150104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oltermann P. Human-animal studies academics dogged by German hoaxers. 2016. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  21. 21.
    Oransky I. Should the chocolate-diet sting study be retracted? And why the coverage doesn’t surprise a news watchdog. 2015. Last accessed 22 July, 2015.
  22. 22.
    Ronagh M, Souder L. The ethics of ironic science in its search for spoof. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(6):1537–49. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9619-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith GCS, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J. 2003;327:1459. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sokal A. A physicist experiments with cultural studies. 1996. Last accessed 22 July 2016.
  25. 25.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Global Science Books: a tale from the cuckoo’s nest. How predatory open access publishing can influence the metrics of a traditional scholarly publisher. KOME. 2014;2(2):73–81. doi: 10.17646/KOME.2014.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. Archives of Biological Sciences: from falling star to glimmer of hope. Self archived. 2015a. Last accessed 22 July, 2016.
  27. 27.
    Teixeira da Silva JA. A call for greater editorial responsibilities. Science Editing. 2015;2(2):89–91. doi: 10.6087/kcse.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A. Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing. KOME. 2016;4(1):84–8. doi: 10.17646/KOME.2016.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 2015;22(1):22–40. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Study of Maternal and Child Kissing (SMACK) Working Group. Maternal kisses are not effective in alleviating minor childhood injuries (boo-boos): a randomized, controlled and blinded study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2015;21(6):1244–6. doi: 10.1111/jep.12508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weinberg S. Sokal’s hoax. The New York Review of Books. 1996;43(13):11–5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wicherts JM, Kievit RA, Bakker M, Borsboom D. Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2012;6:20. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan
  2. 2.Miki-choJapan

Personalised recommendations