You would think mathematics is one of the safest disciplines: no powerful lobbies, no political ideologies setting the tone, just rigorous logic and proof. Yet this new report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) and ICIAM shows that even here, fraud and predatory publishing are creeping in.
The trigger was remarkable: at the end of 2023, Clarivate – the organisation behind the widely used Web of Science to know who are Highly Cited Researchers – decided to exclude the entire field of mathematics. They did this not because there were too few mathematicians, but because the numbers had become so distorted by predatory journals and citation cartels that the list was no longer trustworthy.
When Bibliometrics Take Over
So what went wrong? Bibliometrics – impact factors, citation counts, rankings – have become far too dominant. In mathematics, where fewer papers are published and cited than in most other sciences, the numbers are especially vulnerable. And once numbers start to matter too much, manipulation follows. For instance, think of journals that publish anything for a fee. Researchers systematically cite each other to inflate their own impact. Also, dubious “proofs” of famous conjectures appear without proper peer review.
The Cost of Quantity over Quality
The result? Strong researchers often miss out on funding or job opportunities, while others inflate their CVs. Resources are wasted on quantity rather than quality. And perhaps most worrying: public trust in science erodes – not only within academia but also outside.
The report does more than raise the alarm. Policymakers are urged to rely less on rankings and invest more in expert review. Universities are encouraged to evaluate researchers based on their best work, rather than the sheer number of publications. Individual scholars are called upon to avoid predatory journals. They should speak up when colleagues engage in dubious practices, and teach early-career researchers how to distinguish between genuine and fake research. Granted, this is becoming increasingly difficult due to AI.
A Wake-Up Call – With Unanswered Questions
Still, questions remain. How do you organise large-scale expert review without grinding the system to a halt? Furthermore, how do you persuade universities that use international rankings as marketing tools? And how do you support young researchers who see predatory journals as their only way of “counting”? The recommendations are an essential step, but the bigger tension – between bibliometrics, inequality, and the power of publishers – is far from resolved.
The message, then, is twofold: this report serves as both a wake-up call and an invitation to exercise more critical thinking, with greater attention to quality and integrity. Only then can science – even mathematics – remain a source of trust.
Image created with AI.