Skip to main content

Assessing the Ethics of Stings, Including from the Prism of Guidelines by Ethics-Promoting Organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE)

Abstract

In academic publishing, stings appear to be on the rise. Stings may involve a paper with nonsense or fabricated content, fictitious authors or affiliations, and may be supported by artificially created emails or ORCID accounts, the latter to offer a false impression of validation. In recent times, stings have been used to protest editorial policies or to challenge claims of peer review, with the objective of exposing flawed policies and procedures. While some hail stings as success stories in exposing poor editorial policies and publication flaws, and while others draw humor from them, very few academics have suprisingly assessed the ethics (or lack thereof) and/or criminality of such operations. Consequently, it is rare to find academic papers that are critical of such stings from an ethical and/or criminal perspective. An equally surprising fact is that ethics-promoting organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE), which have ethics guidelines for paper submission to a wide swathe of academic and scholarly journals and publishers, do not have ethics clauses specifically calling out sting operations, even though several of their stated ethics guidelines consider fake, false or falsified elements in an academic paper to be unethical. In this paper, some reflection on broad ethical, humor-related and possible criminal elements of sting operations in academic publishing are considered. In addition, the COPE, ICMJE and CSE ethics guidelines were scrutinized to identify any clauses that could support the argument that stings in academic publishing are unethical.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    COPE currently has 12 guidelines. The guidelines pertaining to retractions were selected: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines; https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 (November 2019; last accessed: January 6, 2021).

  2. 2.

    Recommendations: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/; http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (November 2019; last accessed: January 6, 2021).

  3. 3.

    White Paper on Publication Ethics: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/ (May 4, 2018 with 2020 updates; last accessed: January 6, 2021).

References

  1. 1.

    Albanese JS. Economic and political crime. In: Criminal justice, 3e. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon/Longman; 2005. p. 101–35.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA. Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing. Publ Res Q. 2016;32(3):208–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9473-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Anderson R. Another predatory journal sting: why this one is different and matters more. Against Grain. 2017. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.7784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cavico FJ, Mujtaba B. Wells Fargo’s fake accounts scandal and its legal and ethical implications for management. SAM Adv Manag J. 2017;82(2):4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Draca M, Machin S. Crime and economic incentives. Annu Rev Econ. 2015;7:389–408. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dynel M. Lying and humour. In: Meibauer J, editor. The Oxford handbook of lying. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 325–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198736578.013.25.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dynel M. Irony, deception and humour: seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin: de Gruyter; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507922.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dynel M, Poppi FIM. Quid rides?: Targets and referents of RoastMe insults. Humor. 2019;33(4):535–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Entorf H, Spengler H. Crime, prosecutors, and the certainty of conviction. Eur J Law Econ. 2015;39:167–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-012-9380-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Grover SL. Lying, deceit, and subterfuge: a model of dishonesty in the workplace. Organ Sci. 1993;4(3):478–95. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.3.478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, Bryson GL, Cukier S, Allen K, Ardern C, Balcom L, Barros T, Berger M, Ciro JB, Cugusi L, Donaldson MR, Egger M, Graham ID, Hodgkinson M, Khan KM, Mabizela M, Manca A, Milzow K, Mouton J, Muchenje M, Olijhoek T, Ommaya A, Patwardhan B, Poff D, Proulx L, Rodger M, Severin A, Strinzel M, Sylos-Labini M, Tamblyn R, van Niekerk M, Wicherts JM, Lalu MM. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019;576(7786):210–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Haider J, Åström F. Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “sting” in science. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. 2017;68(2):450–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kenny JF. Criminal foreplay: The process from target selection to victimization. J Appl Secur Res. 2012;7(4):439–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2012.710126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    MacKenzie A, Bhatt I. Lies, bullshit and fake news: some epistemological concerns. Postdigital Sci Educ. 2020;2(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0025-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Norris JJ. Another form of American exceptionalism? A comparative analysis of terrorism sting operations in the US and abroad. Terror Polit Viol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1613984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Radu M-N, Radu M-D. Insurance fraud. Fiat Iustitia. 2015;2015(1):116–28.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Teixeira da Silva JA. Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware. AME Med J. 2017;2:28. https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.02.10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Teixeira da Silva JA. Are pseudonyms ethical in (science) publishing? Neuroskeptic as a case study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(6):1807–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9825-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Teixeira da Silva JA. Ethical considerations of the Andrra Qielli “sting” by Albana Berisha Qehaja. Int J Res Bus Soc Sci. 2020;9(6):289–90. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i6.925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Teixeira da Silva JA. ORCID: Issues and concerns about its use for academic purposes and research integrity. Ann Libr Inform Stud. 2020;67(4):246–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Teixeira da Silva JA. Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences? Croatian Med J. 2020;61(6):564–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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. https://doi.org/10.17646/KOME.2016.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: their importance, content, and context. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(2):521–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Al-Khatib A, Tsigaris P. Challenges facing the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) as a reliable source of open access publishing venues. J Educ Media Libr Sci. 2018;55(3):349–58. https://doi.org/10.6120/JoEMLS.201811_55(3).e001.BC.BE.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J, Tsigaris P, Al-Khatib A. Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment. J Acad Librar. 2019;45(6):102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P. What value do whitelists and blacklists have in academia? J Acad Librar. 2018;44(6):781–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P. Issues with criteria to evaluate blacklists: an epidemiological approach. J Acad Librar. 2020;46(1):102070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Tsigaris P, Teixeira da Silva JA. Why blacklists are not reliable: a theoretical framework. J Acad Librar. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wooley S, Joseff K. Demand for deceit: how the way we think drives disinformation. National Endowment for Democracy, Washington DC, USA. https://www.ned.org/demand-for-deceit-how-way-we-think-drives-disinformation-samuel-woolley-katie-joseff/. January 6, 2020; last accessed: January 8, 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Marta Dynel (Department of Pragmatics, Institute of English Studies, University of Łódź, Poland) for insightful discussion about humor and deceit.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The author contributed to the intellectual discussion underlying this paper, literature exploration, writing, reviews and editing, and accepts responsibility for the content and interpretation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.

Funding

This research was not funded.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Assessing the Ethics of Stings, Including from the Prism of Guidelines by Ethics-Promoting Organizations (COPE, ICMJE, CSE). Pub Res Q 37, 90–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09784-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Accountability
  • False information
  • Lack of integrity and trust
  • Misconduct
  • Opacity
  • Open access