In a timely Scientists' Forum article, FEBS Letters Managing Editor Dr. Duncan Wright discusses five problems in today's bioscience publishing landscape before diagnosing a common cause.

1. Reviewer fatigue: Citing eight years of data from FEBS Letters, Duncan analyses troublesome downward trends in peer-reviewer responsiveness.
2. Paper mills: In 2018, FEBS Press was among the first academic publishers to draw attention to systemic research fraud. Duncan argues for coordinated efforts among publishers to detect fraud before publication and reduce its costs for researchers and the reputation of science.
3. Predatory journals: Existing in symbiosis with paper mills are predatory journals that carry out minimal or no peer review. Duncan argues for increasing researchers' awareness of predatory practices and disincentivising informed researchers form "quick and easy" publication.
4. The tyranny of the journal impact factor:  Duncan explores the concept creep of the JIF as "an indicator of...not only journal quality, but also the quality of individual articles collected in its pages" and considers its downstream effects on editorial and reviewer workloads.
5. Salami-slicing: Duncan calls on publishers to adopt clearer guidelines for these practices, and on authors to disclose related articles that originate from a single study.

Read the full article in Issue 18 of FEBS Letters for Duncan's detailed analysis and proposed solutions, as well as his exploration of the dilemma in our academic culture that provides a substrate for all of these problems.

The Scientists' Forum is a unique series from FEBS Letters that features news articles, interviews or letters to the editors showcasing researchers' perspectives on science and society. The Scientists' Forum has presented commentary on science policy, ethics, art, communication and industry.

Wright, D.E. (2024), Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences—and one common cause. FEBS Lett. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.15018