The 'PISS' Problem: How Self-Published Studies Flood Science

Three scientists have identified a troubling new phenomenon in academic publishing, one they've given a deliberately provocative name: PISS. The acronym, which stands for Published In Support of Self, describes a practice where researchers publish studies primarily to inflate their own curricula vitae.

This trend has transformed what were once selective, quarterly academic journals into what critics describe as "fábricas de churros"—factories producing a constant stream of content. The scale is staggering, with special issues now appearing not monthly or weekly, but sometimes every few hours.

The concept was developed by a multidisciplinary team: Spanish engineer Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Italian economist Paolo Crosetto, and Canadian immunologist Mark Hanson. Their analysis suggests the academic ecosystem is at risk of being overwhelmed by this self-serving publication model.

The traditional model of academic publishing has been fundamentally disrupted. Where special issues were once commissioned from distinguished figures in a field, they are now frequently edited by researchers of average standing. These editors receive a flood of invitations to organize issues, often with minimal oversight.

This system has created a lucrative business model. Journals profit from the volume of submissions, while researchers gain publication credits without the rigorous peer review traditionally associated with high-impact journals. The process has become a self-perpetuating cycle of academic inflation.

Key characteristics of this model include:

• Rapid publication cycles measured in hours, not months
• Editors who are also frequent contributors to their own issues
• Minimal rejection rates in special issue submissions
• Financial incentives that prioritize volume over quality

The result is a system where the quantity of publications often outweighs the quality of research, creating a distorted metric of academic achievement.

Quantifying the issue reveals its alarming scope. An extensive analysis of 100,000 special issues from academic journals uncovered a disturbing pattern: one in eight of these issues was dominated by articles written by the issue's own editor. This represents a significant portion of the academic literature being produced through what amounts to self-citation and self-promotion.

The financial implications are substantial. Public research funding, intended to advance knowledge, is being diverted to support publications that primarily serve to boost individual careers rather than contribute meaningful insights to their fields. The researchers behind the PISS concept warn that this represents a misallocation of millions of euros in public money.

"La piscina de la ciencia corre peligro de llenarse de PISS"

The warning from the research team highlights a systemic risk: as more scientists adopt this practice, the overall credibility of academic research could be undermined. The metaphor suggests the scientific community risks drowning in a sea of self-serving publications.

The PISS phenomenon extends beyond individual researchers to affect entire institutions. Universities and research centers often evaluate academics based on publication metrics, creating institutional pressure to participate in this system. This creates a perverse incentive structure where quantity trumps quality.

Several factors contribute to the proliferation of this practice:

• Academic promotion systems that prioritize publication counts
• The rise of open-access journals with rapid publication models
• Declining resources for rigorous peer review processes
• Competition for limited research funding

Notably, the analysis has identified specific publishers where this pattern is particularly prevalent. The editorial model of certain publishing houses appears to facilitate, rather than discourage, the PISS phenomenon through their business practices.

The international scope of the issue involves researchers from multiple countries, including Spain, Italy, and Canada, suggesting this is not isolated to any single academic system but represents a global challenge to research integrity.

The emergence of PISS reflects deeper structural changes in academic publishing over the past two decades. The shift toward open-access models, while democratizing knowledge, has also created new financial incentives that prioritize volume. Journals now compete for submissions, sometimes lowering standards to attract content.

This trend intersects with broader concerns about research reproducibility and quality. When publication becomes a numbers game, the scientific method itself can be compromised. The PISS phenomenon represents a systemic failure in how research is evaluated and rewarded.

The concept also raises questions about the role of major research organizations and funding bodies. While entities like the CIA and UN fund significant research, their evaluation mechanisms may inadvertently encourage quantity over quality. The disconnect between funding objectives and publication practices creates gaps that can be exploited.

Ultimately, the PISS phenomenon challenges the fundamental purpose of academic publishing: to advance knowledge through rigorous, transparent research. When publications serve primarily as career currency, the entire scientific enterprise is at risk.

The concept of PISS provides a framework for understanding a problem that has been growing in plain sight. By giving this phenomenon a name, researchers have created a tool for discussion and potential reform. The next critical step involves developing metrics and policies that prioritize research quality over publication quantity.

Addressing this issue will require coordinated action from multiple stakeholders. Universities must reconsider how they evaluate researchers, funding agencies need to align incentives with quality, and publishers should implement stronger editorial oversight. The goal is not to eliminate special issues but to ensure they serve their original purpose: advancing knowledge rather than inflating careers.

As the academic community grapples with these challenges, the PISS concept serves as both warning and catalyst for change. The future of scientific research depends on creating systems that reward genuine contribution rather than strategic self-promotion.