How to fight junk science—An argument for deep editorial scrutiny

The integrity, trustworthiness, and fairness of scientific reporting are increasingly under threat from multiple directions. While technically or conceptually weak studies—and even fraudulent papers—have always existed, the scale and sophistication of scientific fraud have now reached new dimensions. These developments risk undermining the credibility of science-based evaluation by editors and peer reviewers and may ultimately erode public trust in science itself. The widespread use of the term alternative facts already signals this troubling trend. Among the most serious threats are the growing flood of manuscripts produced by paper mills1, 2 and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to fabricate or plagiarize studies disguised as original work.3, 4 As editors adopt tools to detect plagiarism or image manipulation, fraudsters are developing AI-driven countermeasures—AI-modified text, AI-generated figures—designed specifically to evade detection. This arms race poses a serious challenge for journals, especially when manuscripts fall outside an editor's immediate expertise. The problem is compounded by predatory journals—an estimated 15,000 of them worldwide—that masquerade as legitimate scientific outlets for financial gain, exploiting open-access publishing fees while neglecting quality control.5 These journals pollute the scientific record with substandard or even absurd work; a notorious example was described by Rebeaud and colleagues.6 Why would researchers engage in behavior that ultimately damages the very field in which they seek to build careers? On the authors' side, the main driver is short-term gain. Many are overworked, under pressure to publish, and tempted by the promise of rapid advancement. In such cases, integrity and fairness toward peers—who may spend years producing solid results—are easily forgotten. The availability of AI tools fosters a false sense of impunity, as detection remains imperfect and sanctions are weak. On the other side stands a lucrative industry of paper mills, offering failed or opportunistic scientists financial rewards for fabricating or patchworking studies. Together, these forces create a system that incentivizes scientific misconduct on an industrial scale. Rigorous pre-screening remains essential. Journals must continue using every available tool to detect plagiarism and figure manipulation, reducing the editorial workload before peer review. Publishers, in turn, must remain vigilant and continuously update their countermeasures as computational tools evolve. Ultimately, the most effective defense lies in the expertise of highly competent scientific editors—those deeply familiar with their field. Such editors are the cornerstone of credible publishing and must be given the time and institutional support to identify not only low-quality work but also AI-disguised plagiarism and paper mill output. These examples highlight why experienced, discerning editors are indispensable for safeguarding scientific quality. Journals must resist the temptation to appoint associate editors who seek prestige rather than commit time and expertise to rigorous evaluation. Competent editors not only filter out weak or fraudulent studies—they also help authors improve manuscripts through constructive feedback, easing the burden on reviewers and elevating overall publication quality. This, in turn, reinforces public trust in science. Given the growing influence of misinformation—whether in climate change denial, vaccine skepticism, or pseudoscientific claims—scientific journals bear a moral responsibility to uphold standards of rigor and truth. We must ensure that flawed or fabricated studies are not mistaken for peer-reviewed science and weaponized for political or ideological agendas.