Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills

Assessing database accuracy for article retractions: A preliminary study comparing Retraction Watch Database, PubMed, and Web of Science

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of metadata for retracted articles in Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed, and Web of Science (WoS).

METHODS

Twenty general internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 2 were randomly selected. RWD, PubMed, and WoS were used to retrieve all retracted articles published in these journals. Eight metadata variables were examined: journal, title, type of article, author(s), country/countries of affiliation, year of publication, year of retraction, and reason(s) for retraction (assessed only for RWD, as this information was unavailable in PubMed and WoS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to document errors across databases.

RESULTS

Thirty-five retractions were identified, and 280 metadata entries (35 × 8) were analyzed. RWD contained the most metadata errors, affecting 16 articles and 20 metadata entries, including seven errors in year of publication, six in article type, six in author names (five misspellings, one missing two authors), and one in country of affiliation. WoS had one error (a missing author), and PubMed had none.

CONCLUSION

The relatively high error rate in RWD suggests that researchers should cross-check metadata across multiple databases. Given the preliminary nature of this study, larger-scale research is needed to confirm these findings and improve metadata reliability in retraction databases.

Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country

This study examines disparities in research retractions due to misconduct, identifying countries with the highest retraction counts and those disproportionately represented relative to population and publication output. The findings emphasize the need for improved research integrity measures.

Sting operations in biomedical publishing violate truthfulness and undermine trust in research

Biomedical research cannot function without the trust of peers and society. The truthfulness of claims made by knowledge-producing agents, such as authors of research, is a prerequisite for their trustworthiness, and violations of truthfulness are rightly seen as a threat to the existence and validity of such research. While most reflection on the lack of truthfulness has focused on fake research, little attention has been paid to how sting operations and hoaxes arguably pose an equally great risk to the ethical integrity of publishing. This paper posits that sting operations, like fake research, are examples of breaches of truthfulness. We also argue that for both fake research, as well as stings and hoaxes, the lack of respect for the ethical criterion of truthfulness makes those researchers who engage in them untrustworthy. Sting operations are akin to fighting fire with fire, further undermining trust in biomedical research. From a deontological perspective, we also argue that the reliance on anonymity in sting operations makes them just as bad, if not worse, than fake research. We advocate for critical scholarship as an alternative to hoaxes and sting operations to expose fake research, in order to promote truthfulness rather than violate it. Finally, we argue that journalists reporting on sting operations should insist less on their entertainment and sensationalist value, and focus more on their unethical nature.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations

BACKGROUND

Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations.

METHODS

The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons.

RESULTS

A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30).

CONCLUSION

Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals

The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.

DYSTOPIAN CASES OF ORCID IDENTIFIERS: ANIMAL-ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTS

DYSTOPIAN CASES OF ORCID IDENTIFIERS: ANIMAL-ASSOCIATED ACCOUNTS

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.

PARTICIPANTS

All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.

RESULTS

1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.

CONCLUSIONS

Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.

The Role of Publons in the Context of Open Peer Review

Publons was a peer reviewer rewards platform that aimed to recognize the contribution that academics made during peer review to a journal. For about 10 years of its existence, Publons became the most popular service among peer reviewers. Having gained traction and popularity, Publons was purchased in 2017 by Clarivate Analytics (now Clarivate), and many academics, journals and publishers invested time and effort to participate in Publons. Using Publons, various peer review-related experiments or pilot programs were initiated by some academic publishers regarding the introduction of open peer review into their journals’ editorial processes. In this paper, we examine pertinent literature related to Publons, and reflect on its benefits and flaws during its short-lived history. In mid-August 2022, Clarivate fused Publons into the Web of Science platform. Publons, as a brand peer review service, has now ceased to exist but some of the functionality remains in Web of Science while other aspects that used to be open and free at Publons are now paid-for services. We reflect on the effect of such experiments, which initially had bold and ambitious academic objectives to fortify peer review, on academics’ trust, especially when such projects become commercialized.

A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.

Tumor Biology's struggle to survive: A tough lesson for cancer and oncology research journals

Tumor Biology, owned by the International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers and currently published by IOS Press, lost its Clarivate impact factor of 3.650 in 2017. It has been plagued by over 100 retractions due to paper mills (including a batch of 15 papers published between 2014 and 2016 that were retracted at the end of 2021), faked peer reviews, and forged research. According to PubMed, the number of papers published by Tumor Biology has been reduced to a mere trickle, dropping from 707 in 2017 to 66 in 2018. It is unclear how Tumor Biology will be able to recover from such disastrous reputational damage and whether there is even merit in continuing its publication. Other journals for cancer and oncology research would do well to observe this case closely and learn from its mistakes.

Are Mandatory Institutional Emails for Manuscript Submission an Unfair and Discriminatory Policy?

With increasing cases of fraud in submission, peer review, and publication processes, some by authors with fake identities and who use concocted emails, including the use of web-based emails, editors and publishers are looking for ways to try and stem the tide of fraud. In some journals, editors and publishers mistakenly believe that this might be possible by implementing a policy that mandates submitting authors to have an institutional email. However, this may be discriminatory at various levels, the most obvious of which is unfairness, i.e., no right to “entry” to a journal based exclusively on the type of email used, even more so when the submitting author is not fake. Such policies might, very ironically, even violate stated journal or publisher policies on discrimination and inclusivity. Editors and publishers that employ such tactics, as a way to attempt to reduce fraudulent submissions, need to rethink this potentially discriminatory strategy. In a publishing world that is becoming increasingly litigious, it would not be surprising if legal action would one day be taken against a journal or publisher by a valid author using a web-based email such as @gmail.com, @yahoo.com, or @163.com, but who may have been unfairly barred entry to that journal based on such a policy. Two real case examples are provided, Tumor Biology, a struggling journal published by IOS Press, and Journal of Business Ethics, a journal published by Springer Nature.

Reflections on the disappearance of Dolos list, a now-defunct “predatory” publishing blacklist

After the closure of Jeffrey Beall’s open access “predatory” publishing blacklists in mid-January of 2017, a new “predatory publishing” blacklist emerged in 2018, Dolos list. This blacklist, curated by “Professor Alexandre Georges”, became defunct sometime in late 2020 or early 2021 based on publicly available clues. In this paper, several aspects of this blacklist, as retrieved from the Internet Archive and ResearchGate, were examined, including the profile of “Alexandre Georges”. The veracity of this individual’s identity is questioned. Discussion is provided about the citation, use and promotion of Dolos list in the literature and on websites as a solution and/or resource pertaining to “predatory” publishing. Given the questionable nature of the now-defunct Dolos blacklist website, and the uncertainty regarding the veracity of its curator’s identity, the author holds the opinion that sites that continue to promote the Dolos list may also be spreading inaccurate information (i.e., misinformation) to academics.