From superficial scholarship to algorithmic slop in analytical chromatography

Analytical chromatography is a cornerstone of modern science, yet a growing proportion of its literature risks contributing little genuine innovation. Here, we offer a provocation: superficial scholarship, work that satisfies the formal expectations of science while adding limited epistemic value, has become increasingly normalised within the chromatographic literature. We identify recurring archetypes of weak practice, including redundant incremental methods, selective neglect of foundational scholarship, inflated claims of performance, superficial validation, and a culture of metric-driven publications that reward quantity over quality. We argue that these behaviours are no longer isolated failings, but are increasingly embedded within the structures that govern publication, reward, and scientific visibility. We further contend that the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence threatens to accelerate this trajectory, transforming weak but human-driven practices into high-throughput scientific slop that boosts individual productivity while contracting the collective space of discovery. To resist this drift, we propose reforms centred on strengthening validation standards, practical data transparency, incentivising replication and post-publication scrutiny, and realigning academic rewards toward quality and curiosity rather than throughput. The aim is not to disparage analytical chemistry, but to catalyse a candid reckoning with how the field preserves rigour, creativity, and relevance in an era of algorithmic acceleration.