Forty years ago, I met in Manhattan a high school companion, M.D. in profession (whom I never saw since youth) who told me about his success to publish with little effort papers in mediocre journals.

To my astonishment, he explained (openly and without any embarrassment) his strategy: “I search the literature for 15-20 years old publications that for various reasons their subject was neglected thereafter, and so with minimum effort I repeat the study using present techniques, obtain the same results and conclusions, and send it out as new data. Usually, the editors and reviewers do not check such outdated literature, and my papers are being accepted easily. Subsequently, I enjoy substantial increase of my list of publications, which pays off in academic promotion”. Years later, still with this bizarre story echoing in my head, and along with a large variety of papers I reviewed ever since, I realized that ‘futile publications” still find their way to the public domain. This bothering phenomenon raises questions of why is it still so common and can it be restrained? 

The basis of this upsetting problem likely lies under the compulsory desire for public recognition, rewards, and academic promotion in a highly competitive scientific environment. However, this desire displays two faces: A positive face of diligence and innovation that enhances and broadens the scientific lore, but also a negative face of fraudulence and ‘trash’, occasionally fake, scientific reports, leading inexplicably to depreciation in scientific faith. This sad reality persists despite the international controlling system established centuries ago to disseminate the results of original studies while protecting their authenticity and trueness. Unfortunately, this system falls occasionally short in identifying futile publications or fabrications and deceptive data that find their way to the public domain. This raises a question of whether this increasing volume of dull literature reflects an unstoppable trend of scientific descent. Clearly, the importance of good appraisal of a submitted paper as well as evaluation of its scientific contribution to the readership, and whether adequately written, are key when seeking scientific perfection. In general, the current publication system composed of editorial boards of scientific journals and selected referees sorts out scanty work and rejects immature or ‘half-baked’ papers, while proving efficiency in praising novelty and quality. Furthermore, this publication system enables scientific globalization and spread of 'oven hot' findings, as well as encourages collaboration opportunities, and constitutes a high barrier on scientific misconducts and false publication attempts. Yet, further contemplation suggests that this control mechanism is quite naïve and limited in diminishing 'trash' publications. It seems that as long as the evaluation mechanism leans heavily on the competitive propensity among scientists as well as on trust and belief that the entire scientific community is basically honest and ethical, this leak will not dissipate. Unfortunately, educational values, integrity and trust, are insufficient in instances where the pressure to publish, what so ever, incites recklessness, or when the rules for sorting out futile publications are insufficient. Numerous reasons enable this despicable phenomenon, for example: [1] the editor is unfamiliar with the subject and so his decision relies entirely on the reports of the referees. Should the referees be unfamiliar too or their appraisal superficial, excessive permissiveness of the editor may lead to acceptance of a weak, sometimes futile, paper; [2]. The editor is personally acquainted with the author and to avoid an unpleasant debate he decides on acceptance despite serious drawbacks; [3]When a poor paper obtains positive comments by the reviewers, it may be accepted despite lack of novelty and negligible contribution to the readers (‘horizontal pile up’). This issue is truly difficult to judge as always arguments about the need to confirm previous results or widen the list of organisms or issues explored using various methodologies would arise; [4]. The author is a member in the editorial board, and so the appraisal of his contribution is insincere; [5]. The data has been fabricated entirely or in part with false supportive figures, tables or statistics. In some instances, the data may rely on previous false publication (‘misconduct pile up’); [6]. When issues other than pure science (political, industrial, personal) are involved in the editorial decision; [7]. The pressure to publish and keep a low-impact journal alive may lead to acceptance of poor articles. 

With such obstacles, may we hope for an improved appraisal system that sticks a finger in the dam to avoid a minor leak of futile publications from becoming a flood? It seems that an international tribunal that controls the publication system is required. This tribunal should survey and identify the most awkward editorials; Be able to shut off problematic editorial boards until their appraisal procedures are improved; Check carefully upon whoever wishes to establish new journals, and grant permission only to approved personnel; Disseminate extreme examples of fraud or trash publications (deliberate shaming); Be able to remove from chair editors who used their power for purposes other than scientific (political, personal); Serve as an international high court in debates among scientists and between authors and editors.

Enforcement of strict rules followed by firmer inspection may improve the current leaky situation. Such tribunal, composed of leading scientists, should have the power and means to nominate ad-hoc subcommittees and enforce their verdicts. It probably needs to begin by “cleaning the stable” and disqualification of hundreds of “fake journals” in the public domain, and continue with enforcement of the rules proposed as well as establishment of an international scientific constitution.