A major international science journal, once publishing nearly 10,000 studies annually, has been removed from a key global index of reputable publications. The delisting of Science of the Total Environment follows the discovery of dozens of irregular articles, including some approved through fraudulent peer reviews, placing a spotlight on the billion-dollar profits of academic publishing.
Key Takeaways
- The journal Science of the Total Environment was expelled from Clarivate's prestigious database for failing to meet quality standards.
- Its publisher, Elsevier, reported a 38% profit margin in 2024, earning approximately $1.5 billion.
- Allegations include manipulated peer reviews and potential conflicts of interest involving the former editor-in-chief.
- The incident highlights growing concerns over the "publish or perish" culture in science, which critics say prioritizes quantity over quality.
A Fall from Grace
The London-based analytics firm Clarivate, which maintains a list of influential scientific journals, confirmed on November 18 that it had removed Science of the Total Environment. A company spokesperson stated the journal no longer met its quality criteria but declined to provide specific details on the decision.
This move effectively strips the journal of its impact factor, a key metric used by universities and funding bodies to assess the prestige of a researcher's work. For many scientists, publishing in an indexed journal is critical for career advancement and securing grants.
The journal, owned by the Dutch publishing giant Elsevier, had become one of the most prolific in the world. Under the leadership of its former editor-in-chief, Damià Barceló, the number of articles published annually grew tenfold, from under 1,000 to nearly 10,000 in a decade.
The Business Model of Modern Science
Many academic journals now operate on an "open access" model. Instead of readers paying for subscriptions, scientists or their institutions pay a fee to have their research published. For Science of the Total Environment, this fee is $4,150 plus taxes per article. Critics argue this model creates a financial incentive for journals to accept more papers, potentially compromising the rigor of the review process.
Investigations Reveal Systemic Failures
Prior to its delisting, the journal was already facing internal scrutiny. Elsevier has retracted approximately 50 studies authored by Brazilian biologist Guilherme Malafaia. An internal investigation found that these articles were approved using a fraudulent peer review system.
The process involved creating fake expert reviews using the names of real scientists without their knowledge or consent. This allowed substandard or fabricated research to bypass the quality controls that are the bedrock of scientific integrity.
Elsevier has acknowledged the issues, stating it conducted an initial investigation that led to the retractions. A spokesperson confirmed a broader investigation is now underway, focusing on conflicts of interest and other potential signs of misconduct. The company has expressed its intent to "fully rehabilitate" the journal.
A Multi-Billion Dollar Industry
The four largest scientific publishers—Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis—collectively earned more than $7 billion in 2024. According to a recent analysis, these companies have amassed over $14 billion in profits over the last six years, largely from public funds allocated for scientific research.
The Role of the Editor
Much of the journal's rapid expansion occurred under Damià Barceló, a highly prolific chemist who took over as editor-in-chief in 2012. Throughout his career, Barceló has authored some 1,800 scientific papers, with over 200 of them published in Science of the Total Environment, the journal he edited.
Records show his name appearing as the editor on some of his own published studies, a practice that raises questions about conflicts of interest. Barceló is also listed as a co-author on several papers with Guilherme Malafaia, the researcher whose work was retracted for fake peer reviews, though their shared studies have not been retracted to date.
An Elsevier spokesperson confirmed that Barceló resigned from his position in March 2025 as part of a "broader initiative to strengthen the journal’s governance." However, the publisher maintained that the "systemic problems" at the journal could not be attributed to a single individual.
'Publish or Perish' Culture Under Fire
The scandal has intensified a long-standing debate about the culture of modern academia. The pressure on scientists to "publish or perish" means their funding, promotions, and job security often depend on the sheer volume of their published work.
Emilio Delgado, a documentation professor at the University of Granada, described the journal as a "mega-business" that operated with an "open door" to accept a high volume of articles. His analysis noted that publications from Chinese and Spanish authors were disproportionately high, double the typical ratio for the field.
"We must clean up this mess. We must continue to introduce measures to discourage, almost penalize, publishing for the sake of publishing."
Reform advocates argue that the system incentivizes quantity over quality, leading to a flood of low-impact studies and, in some cases, outright fraud. In Spain, the national agency for evaluating academics, ANECA, has already begun shifting its criteria away from publication volume. Experts like Dr. Jordi Camí, president of the Spanish Research Ethics Committee, are calling for more aggressive measures to fix a system they believe is broken.