Richard J. Gray
@drrichardgray.bsky.social
Most research is wrong-or meaningless. I explain why (authorship, citations, integrity). Follow for uncomfortable truths ↓
Not all trial registries are created equal. As an editor and reviewer, I've musing—not on whether clinical trials are registered, but whether the registration is detailed enough to do its job. open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
Not All Trial Registries Are Created Equal
Why the quality of trial registration matters as much as registration itself
open.substack.com
The most interesting story in the 2025 Journal Citation Reports may not be the Impact Factors themselves, but the growing effort to protect their credibility. open.substack.com/pub/richardj... #AcademicPublishing #ResearchIntegrity #JournalMetrics
Can a paper change quartile after it's published? Using five years of SCImago data (~30,000 journals), I found that 58% of journals changed quartile at least once and 28% held multiple quartile rankings simultaneously. So what exactly is a "Q1 paper"? 🔗 bit.ly/Q1Paper
We've spent 30 yrs developing reporting guidelines. Yet reporting quality remains stubbornly suboptimal. What if we're asking the wrong question about AI? Instead of asking how AI might damage research quality, should we also ask how it might improve it? substack.com/home/post/p-... #PeerReview #AI
What if AI does to qualitative research what statistical software did to quantitative research? I've been exploring the idea of theme-hacking: repeatedly analysing the same dataset until a publishable narrative emerges. bit.ly/theme-hacking
Universities reward peer-reviewed publications, citations and grants. But what about the peer review that makes those outputs possible? If peer review is essential to research quality, why is it so rarely recognised? bit.ly/peerreviewre... #PeerReview #AcademicPublishing
Peer review still underpins academic publishing. But fewer academics seem willing — or able — to do it. My latest Substack argues modern publishing is eroding the academic goodwill on which peer review depends. bit.ly/academic-goo... #PeerReview #Academia
Predatory journals are usually framed as the villains of academic publishing. But what if predatory publishing is also a product of the wider system itself? My latest Substack explores publish-or-perish culture, APCs, prestige hierarchies, and the economics of academic legitimacy. bit.ly/4predpub
Some researchers now publish a paper every five days. The rise of the hyperprolific author reflects changing academic incentives, consortium science, and growing concerns about research integrity. New article: shorturl.at/hyperprolific #AcademicChatter #ResearchIntegrity #Science
AI can generate academic references that look real — but some don’t exist. Hallucinated citations are already appearing in papers and conference submissions. Science runs on trust. What happens when citations can’t be trusted? “The Citation Crisis Is Already Here” bit.ly/citation-crisis
Diamond OA - free to read, free to publish - a solution to the publishing crisis. Why hasn’t it taken off? Because the system is shaped by incentives - funding, prestige, and infrastructure - that favour established models. #OpenAccess #DiamondOA #AcademicPublishing 👉 bit.ly/diamonds-are...
“Diamonds aren’t forever” — and neither is the illusion of permanence in science. A sharp piece on how research systems shape what we value, publish, and trust. Worth a read 👇 open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
We say “Q1” like it’s a badge of quality. It isn’t. It’s a sorting mechanism that became a mantra. And now we are told this is where to publish without questioning it. open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
Stop Chasing Q1
Journal Quartiles Aren’t What You Think
open.substack.com
Stop chasing Q1. It’s a metric, not a measure of quality. If we optimise for quartiles, we shouldn’t be surprised when we get safe, incremental, and ultimately forgettable research. Here’s the problem 👇 open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
You don’t need a good question. You just need a method. Systematic reviews are booming - but many say absolutely nothing. Not wrong. Just … empty. 🔗 open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
Are We Publishing Too Many Systematic Reviews That Say Nothing?
The Quandary of the Empty Review
open.substack.com
We fund the research. We write it. We review it. And then we pay to read it. Explain that. 👉 open.substack.com/pub/richardj...
The Shadowy World of Academic Publishing
Who does the work, who pays the price - and who profits?
open.substack.com
One study. Five papers. “Salami slicing” is distorting the evidence base, overloading peer review, and rewarding volume over quality. And with AI, it’s about to scale. New Substack 👇 open.substack.com/pub/richardj... #ResearchIntegrity #OpenScience #AcademicPublishing #ResearchEthics #GenerativeAI
