Peer-review

Dyer O. Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. BMJ.

2015 Apr 1;350:h1783.

 

BioMed Central, the UK based publisher of 277 medical and scientific journals, has retracted 43 papers “because the peer-review process was inappropriately influenced and compromised,” said a statement in a string of retraction notices published this week.

 

“As a result,” each notice continues, “the scientific integrity of the article cannot be guaranteed. A systematic and detailed investigation suggests that a third party was involved in supplying fabricated details of potential peer reviewers for a large number of manuscripts submitted to different journals.”  BioMed Central detected a handful of cases last year in which authors had submitted fake names, or real names with fake email addresses, as suggested peer reviewers for their articles. But after a thorough review the number of cases ballooned to 43. This brings to about 170 the total number of retractions in journals worldwide attributed to the relatively new phenomenon of fraudulent peer review.

In the best known case, 60 papers on acoustics were retracted by the Journal of Vibration and Control last year, after publishers cited a “peer review and citation ring” operating in Taiwan.

The 43 papers retracted this week were all on medical research. Many, but not all, originated in China. The journals with the most retractions were the European Journal of Medical Research and Diagnostic Pathology.

Discussing the case on BioMed Central’s blog, the senior editor Elizabeth Moylan, responsible for research integrity, wrote that the institutions of the authors had been contacted, as well as the institutions of authors of a larger number of rejected papers that also came with suggestions for fabricated reviewers.
 

1. ¹Montreal

“We are aware that many researchers entrust their manuscripts to reputable third-party agencies for ‘language polishing’ or assistance with submission,” wrote Moylan. “It is possible that some researchers may have innocently become implicated in attempts to manipulate the peer review process by disreputable services.

 

“During the course of our investigation, authors have shared with us the names of third-party agencies that offer support to authors but also guarantee favourable peer review outcomes in return for a fee. Other services sell authorship on entire papers written by others. Clearly, there is a need to distinguish the characteristics of reputable third-party agencies from those that are dishonest.”...
 

BioMed Central has turned off the facility for authors to directly enter the names of potential peer reviewers in its submission system, wrote Moylan. Authors may still suggest peer reviewers in their covering letters. The same step has been taken by the journal PLoS One, which found one of the same apparently fictional reviewer names in a paper it rejected.

BioMed Central is working with the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), wrote Moylan, to tackle the broader problem of “perverse incentives that reward scientists for ‘impact’ and ‘productivity’ rather than for the quality of their research or the ability to replicate studies.”

See: How the biggest fabricator in science got caught 5/22/15
        Online journals 5/1/15