Let them who is without sin cast the first stone

What does the condescending tone in the acknowledgment tell us about the scholarly publication system?

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" — this saying is often invoked to highlight hypocrisy; indeed, there's much to dissect here. Let’s dig into it!

For over a week, my timelines on various social media platforms are filled with posts and comments about a recent paper authored by Barzehkar et al. 2024. The paper is not famous for its groundbreaking achievements (yet) but for something else. Its acknowledgment section…

There’s been a growing trend of appreciative posts by researchers praising authors for their mocking tone in that section. In the acknowledgment section, Barzehkar et al. satirically thank one “anonymous reviewer” while covertly blaming them for coercive citations. The acknowledgment section reads as follows:

Suggesting coercive citations is an absolute sin unless a proper justification is provided. Editors should discourage such practices, and reviewers should be extra careful not to engage in any dubious or questionable behavior that could negatively affect credibility. This is what we all easily agree on.

However, while attempting to gain credit through this satirical approach, the authors inadvertently reveal a failure to understand the review process and, more importantly, scientific principles, ethics, and etiquette in their very paper. Furthermore, other problematic aspects of the publication process deserve further elaboration, and it seems that even “world-renowned” researchers who show sympathy for this section ignore the real problem, except very few (See, e.g., @alexeidrummond or @kmagnacca)

First of all, when I see these citations, it is evident that they come from a researcher with Turkish origins affiliated with a Turkish institution. I am not an expert in this particular field (like no one else within my network because I am not even remotely connected to any marine researcher), but I can guess that this “anonymous” reviewer was not a top researcher within his field. Thus, non-Western-sounding names can signal an inferior quality of research, as this was the sentiment in most posts I have read so far. But, let’s replace the names with Western ones and try to read it again:

We appreciate the suggestion of one anonymous reviewer to expand the analysis in the light of achievements Williams and Young (2022), Goldman and Johnson (2009), Young (2010, 2011), Young and Skyler (2009), Young et al. (2012a, 2012b), Edison, Young and Hugh (2021), Edison, Young and Williams (2022).

Perhaps the issue seems less significant now. I bet this does not even sound satirical anymore. But what if this recognition was a genuine one? What if the authors really wanted to acknowledge these papers? Again, based on all reactions I read so far, (except @kmagnacca), the satirical tone was taken for granted. (Maybe I am also a victim of my social bubble)

This is a simple example illustrating how colonial legacies override research norms. On the other hand, these questions also deserve answers. Would the authors be as daring if the researchers were not from less-represented backgrounds? Could authors adopt the same condescending tone if more renowned authors suggested extensive, undeserved self-citations? Or could the authors show criticism, or will they even be allowed to show it if themselves were from underrepresented backgrounds affiliated with a non-Western institution?

You can look at the problem from the colonial perspective, downgrading the research from the global south. Maybe citations were indeed relevant. Did anyone read the paper and check the suggestions? Again, based on their tone, it appears that even the authors didn’t even read any of these suggestions while still citing them in their work. But then, how can they claim authorship if they are forced to cite references that they are questioning? Who is then responsible for the content of their article? How can authors be critical about suggested citations and cite them in their research for which they are absolutely responsible? If authors cite researchers undeservedly, how can we ensure they are not citing their friends, colleagues, peers, top researchers in the field, or editors to impress and reward others? Why did the author team show a submissive attitude in this context and conform to the suggestions when they could disagree easily?

Another issue that arises is this: Is it appropriate to rant about this issue in the acknowledgment section rather than contacting the editor and transparently sharing concerns? Couldn’t the authors have convinced the editors that these suggested citations are irrelevant? Don’t the editors handling the paper now appear incompetent for not adequately overseeing or monitoring the review process? What if the reviewers’ work has been largely ignored due to visible and invisible barriers in academia?

There are many other questions I would like to ask… So many of them. Not because I do not know the answers. There are so many questions to be asked about the system, incentives, and rewards.

I think I hate (the hypocrisy in) academia. That’s what makes me stay and question!