Money over science? Researchers question Nutrients journal integrity over ethical guidelines
13 Sep 2022 --- Hundreds of physicians, scientists and health professionals are calling on the Editors-in-Chief of Nutrients to suspend the journal’s publication or put a halt to animal studies, which violate the publication’s ethical guidelines, according to a letter signed by over 800 experts.
Similarly, over 700 professionals are also calling on Medline, the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database and primary component of PubMed, to limit or suspend Nutrients’ participation.
“The journal’s repeated policy violations have caused us to lose confidence in its integrity, and its refusal to act on repeated complaints has led us to view these problems as systemic and requiring a more fundamental solution,” the letter specifies.
Nutrients is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal of human nutrition published semimonthly online by MDPI, active since 1996 and based in Basel, Switzerland. The journal did not respond to NutritionInsight in time for publication.
The signatories, many of which are peer reviewers for the journal, say repeated complaints have led them to view the problems as systemic.Sidestepping animal ethics?
According to the letter, Nutrients’ guidelines for authors explicitly require the replacement of animals with alternatives wherever possible. The signatories nonetheless accuse the editors of publishing studies where experimenters used animals where alternatives were readily available.
“Of particular concern are articles, appearing in virtually every Nutrients issue, in which commercial supplement manufacturers, students, junior faculty members, or others have sidestepped ethical research methods and, instead, have purchased and experimented on small animals – particularly those exempt from welfare requirements – then submitted results to Nutrients,” the letter specifies.
“By publishing these articles, Nutrients signals to young researchers that ethical mandates can be safely dodged and that it welcomes such submissions in the future.”
Sadistic behavior?
Citing an example, the signatories underline that Nutrients recently published a submission from the manufacturer of saffron-based nutrition supplements, which were purported to improve mood.
“Rather than administering saffron to volunteers and tracking depressive symptoms with validated instruments as other researchers have done, the manufacturer force-fed its supplement to mice via gavage, dropped them in water tanks, and then timed the duration of the animals’ panicked struggles as a crude index of mood.”
The journal’s ethics guidelines should have barred this publication for violating the principle of “replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible,” the signatories note. However, the article was published, and complaints to the journal about the cited ethical violation were rebuffed, according to the experts.
“In some cases, the study methods would be considered by objective observers to constitute sadistic behavior inflicted on small animals in the guise of science.”
As a consequence of the journal’s decisions, readers have no confidence in the quality of research published, according to the letter.
Resignations and profits
The signatories note that between January and June 2022, Nutrients published 2,545 articles in 12 issues. Its article-processing charge is 2,600 Swiss Francs (US$2,645) per article, which suggests the journal has received approximately US$6.7 million in author fees over this period, the equivalent of more than US$13 million per year.
“In 2018, ten senior editors at Nutrients resigned due to what was reported to be growing pressures from the publisher MDPI to accept ‘manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance’.”
Janine McCarthy, research policy specialist of the Physicians Committee and signatory, says: “It is vital that journals uphold their ethical policies. Publishing research of mediocre quality that isn’t contributing to the advancement of public health is detrimental to the scientific community.”
Earlier this year, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a ban on medical animal testing as well as an import ban for ingredients tested on animals. The ban would have meant that testing on animals and humans, as well as the import of cosmetic, medical and supplement ingredients tested on either, would be prohibited.
An EU petition to ban animal testing received over 1 million signatures, with campaigners seeking to take the matter to the European Commission and the European Parliament.
By Andria Kades
