Imagine a world where The Simpsons characters Edna Krabappel and Maggie Simpson, along with a mysterious figure named Kim Jong Fun, could author a groundbreaking scientific paper. Sounds absurd, right?
Well, that’s exactly what happened—and the paper, titled “Fuzzy Homogeneous Configurations,” was accepted not by one, but two scientific journals.
Here’s the kicker: the paper is complete nonsense. It’s a string of random words generated by a computer, with an abstract that reads, “The Ethernet must work.
In this paper, we confirm the improvement of e-commerce.”
Yet, both the Journal of Computational Intelligence and Electronic Systems and the Aperito Journal of NanoScience Technology agreed to publish it.
This isn’t a plotline from a Simpsons episode—it’s a real-life hoax designed to expose predatory journals, which spam researchers, charge hefty fees, and publish anything without proper peer review.
The experiment, orchestrated by US engineer Alex Smolyanitsky, reveals a troubling truth about the state of scientific publishing.
Predatory Journals Aren’t Just a Nuisance—They’re a Threat
At first glance, this story might seem like a humorous prank.
After all, who wouldn’t chuckle at the idea of Maggie Simpson co-authoring a scientific paper?
But dig deeper, and the implications are far from funny.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Predatory journals aren’t just a minor inconvenience in the scientific community—they’re a serious threat to the integrity of research.
These journals exploit young scientists desperate to build their careers, charging them hundreds or even thousands of dollars to publish their work.
In return, they offer little to no peer review, often publishing outright gibberish.
The hoax paper by Smolyanitsky is a perfect example.
Despite its glaring flaws—like citing fictional authors from a made-up university—the journals accepted it without question.
One journal even sent Smolyanitsky an invoice for a $459 publishing fee.
As Joseph Stromberg of Vox reports, this isn’t an isolated incident.
In 2014, reputable publishers Springer and IEEE retracted over 120 papers, some of which were pure nonsense generated by the same program used for the Simpsons paper.
This shows that the problem isn’t limited to shady, fly-by-night operations—it’s infiltrating even well-respected institutions.
How the Hoax Worked
Smolyanitsky’s experiment was brilliantly simple.
Using a random text generator, he created a paper filled with meaningless jargon and buzzwords.
To make it unmistakably fake, he added the names of three fictional authors: Edna Krabappel, Maggie Simpson, and Kim Jong Fun, all affiliated with the nonexistent “Belford University.”
The abstract alone should have raised red flags.
It claimed to introduce a new methodology called “WEKAU” for forward-error correction, stating, “WEKAU is the solution to all of these challenges.”
Yet, neither journal questioned its validity.
“I wanted first and foremost to come up with something that gives out the fake immediately,” Smolyanitsky told Vox.
“My only regret is that the second author isn’t Ralph Wiggum.”
Why Predatory Journals Thrive
Predatory journals prey on a broken system. In academia, publish or perish is the mantra.
Researchers, especially early in their careers, are under immense pressure to publish as many papers as possible to secure funding, promotions, and tenure.
This desperation creates a lucrative market for predatory journals.
Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, has been tracking these journals for years.
His list of predatory publishers now includes around 550 entries, and it’s growing.
But the problem isn’t just about money—it’s about credibility.
When fake or low-quality research is published, it undermines public trust in science.
It also makes it harder for legitimate researchers to stand out in a sea of questionable publications.
Fighting Back Against Predatory Journals
Smolyanitsky’s hoax isn’t the first of its kind. In 2014, a paper titled “Get Me Off Your F*cking Mailing List” was accepted by a predatory journal.
The entire paper consisted of those seven words repeated over and over, accompanied by flow charts.
While these stings are humorous, they serve a serious purpose: raising awareness about the predatory publishing industry.
By shining a light on these practices, they pressure journals to improve their standards and help researchers avoid falling victim to scams.
What Can Be Done?
The fight against predatory journals requires action on multiple fronts:
- Education: Researchers, especially students and early-career scientists, need to be taught how to identify predatory journals. Resources like Beall’s list are a good starting point.
- Institutional Support: Universities and funding agencies should prioritize quality over quantity when evaluating researchers’ work.
- Regulation: Governments and scientific organizations could establish stricter guidelines for what constitutes a legitimate journal.
A Call to Action
The story of Edna Krabappel and Maggie Simpson’s fake paper is more than just a clever prank—it’s a wake-up call.
Predatory journals are a symptom of a deeper problem in the scientific community, one that prioritizes volume over quality and exploits those who are most vulnerable.
As we laugh at the absurdity of a Simpsons-themed hoax, let’s also take a moment to reflect on how we can protect the integrity of science.
After all, the stakes are too high to ignore.
Sources: Vox, Washington Post
