Does the culture of science publishing need to change from the status quo principle of “trust me”?

Abstract

Two recent editorials by Komorowski [1] and Ożegalska-Trybalska [2] leave readers with much to reflect on regarding the state of academic and science publishing, as well as the dynamics of the peer review process.This is because science publishing, including cancer research, is in a highly transformative -if not revolutionary -period.For authors and journals whose papers have been retracted, it is a painful period that may ultimately destroy their careers, reputations, and legends [3].Some of that change is fueled by a desire from a segment of academia to replace the current publishing status quo, or the publishing oligopoly [4].These are journals that have come to dominate fields of research, bolstered by indexing on powerful, prestigious and highly visible platforms (such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science), and which have been assigned pseudo-quality metrics (the Clarivate impact factor or the Scopus CiteScore).Collectively, these journals have operated in a vanity-based publishing culture where peer perception of academics is judged more by where they publish rather than what they publish.That status quo mentality, which remains the dominant "force" in academic publishing today, relies on the principle of "trust me", i.e., publishers blindly trust editors, editors blindly trust peer reviewers and authors, and authors blindly trust editors, peer reviewers, and publishers.This triangle of metrics-indexing-"trust me" subsequently breeds unhealthy competition, where academics are then "taught" to aspire to these pseudo-academic parameters, rather than focusing

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.