The scientific communication system we use today is the result of centuries of evolution. Understanding how we got here — and where the system has failed — is relevant for any team that uses scientific evidence as the basis for development decisions.

The Evolution of the Scientific Publication System

From institutional judgment to peer review

Until the 20th century, scientific work was disseminated through a mechanism initiated in the 17th century almost simultaneously in Paris and London: researchers sent their manuscripts to prestigious entities — academies, universities, or professional colleges — whose members decided whether to publish it in the association’s journal. Reviewing the material and the decision to publish were not governed by formal rules, but by the judgment of the institution’s members.

This system persisted until the 20th century, when the increase in scientific activity and the predominance of publication by commercial publishers — disconnected from research — led to the creation of the manuscript reviewer role and the emergence of Peer Review. This figure is crucial because it guarantees the originality and relevance of the manuscript and enables its publication in the journal.

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF)

Another 20th century innovation is the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), introduced by Eugene Garfield to calculate the average number of citations received by works published in a journal over two years. Initially, the JIF helped librarians select which journals to include in their collections, as more citations indicate more readers. Over time, it gained popularity among scientists, who began using it to choose where to publish their work based on potential audience size in their field.

Open Access: democratizing access to science

The third factor is Open Access, a movement advocating for the free publication and reading of scientific information. High publication costs are a barrier for many researchers, as is access to publications only available to subscribers or in physical libraries. The cost of a PDF can range from USD 20 to USD 30.

The combination of these three factors — peer review, JIF, and open access — has enabled accelerated growth in peer-to-peer scientific communication and has facilitated scientific progress in developing countries, as well as the growth of the publishing industry.

The Dark Side: Fake Papers, Plagiarism, and Data Fabrication

However, the same system that facilitates scientific communication has also enabled the growth of inappropriate behaviors: plagiarism, data fabrication, and results manipulation. Studies show that around 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 contained data or manipulations contrary to scientific ethics.

One of the most well-known cases with the greatest public health consequences was that of Andrew Wakefield, who published an article in The Lancet in 1998 claiming a link between the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism. The article was eventually retracted after subsequent investigations demonstrated that the data had been manipulated and that Wakefield had undisclosed conflicts of interest. However, the damage was already done: the anti-vaccine movement used that paper as a reference, generating public health consequences that persist to this day.

Why the Fake Papers Problem Is Relevant for Pharmaceutical Development

In the pharmaceutical industry, published scientific evidence is the basis for multiple critical decisions: candidate molecule selection, clinical protocol design, mechanism of action evaluation, and safety result interpretation. A fraudulent paper incorporated as a reference in a development plan can direct resources toward dead ends or, in more serious cases, compromise study safety.

The problem is compounded by the rise of predatory journals — open access publications that charge publication fees but do not apply rigorous peer review — and by the use of artificial intelligence to generate apparently plausible scientific content without real experimental validation.

Warning signs that R&D teams should consider when evaluating scientific literature include:

• Journals not indexed in recognized databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science).
• Unusually short review times (less than one week from submission to acceptance).
• Absence of information about the journal’s peer review process.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest by authors.
• Inability of other research groups to reproduce published results.

Conclusion

The scientific publication system has evolved to facilitate access to knowledge, but that same openness has created vulnerabilities that the pharmaceutical sector cannot ignore. Critical evaluation of scientific literature — verifying journal quality, the review process, conflicts of interest, and result reproducibility — is an essential technical competency for any development team.

In an environment where the strength of evidence determines the quality of development decisions, distinguishing between valid science and fraudulent science is not an academic problem. It is an operational problem with real consequences.