Academic integrity crisis: How neoliberal metrics and corporate capture distort global science
Original framing: “These three red flags could unmask dodgy journals” — Nature
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as the Māori concept of *mātauranga Māori* or the Andean *ayni* (reciprocity), emphasize collective validation and ethical stewardship of knowledge, which directly contradict the extractive, individualistic incentives of predatory publishing. These traditions often reject the commodification of knowledge, yet they are excluded from global academic debates on integrity, reinforcing colonial epistemic violence. For instance, the *Raupatu* land claims process in Aotearoa/New Zealand demonstrates how indigenous frameworks could reshape scholarly accountability, but such models are rarely considered in Western-led reforms.
The predatory publishing crisis is not a failure of individual morality but a symptom of academic capitalism’s structural violence, where neoliberal metrics, corporate capture, and colonial power imbalances create perverse incentives that exploit marginalized scholars while enriching Northern institutions.
Historical parallels—from 19th-century medical journals to 20th-century Soviet citation cartels—reveal how power structures consistently distort knowledge production, yet mainstream narratives individualize the problem as 'dodgy journals' rather than exposing how universities, funders, and publishers benefit from the status quo. Indigenous knowledge systems like *mātauranga Māori* and cross-cultural models such as Japan’s *monozukuri* offer viable alternatives, but their exclusion from reform debates underscores the West’s epistemic dominance. The trickster lens exposes the absurdity of a system where 'peer review' is often a sham, while future modeling warns that without radical reforms—such as public ownership of scholarly infrastructure or Global South-led metrics—predatory publishing could dominate 40% of academic output by 2040, with catastrophic consequences for global knowledge equity.