• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Major publisher retracts 43 scientific papers amid wider fake peer-review scandal

natasa778

Senior Member
Messages
1,774
not sure if posted before?

Washington Post, 27 March 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.

The publisher is BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals.

...
Meanwhile, the Committee on Publication Ethics, a multidisciplinary group that includes more than 9,000 journal editors, issued a statement suggesting a much broader potential problem. The committee, it said, “has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals across different publishers.” Those journals are now reviewing manuscripts to determine how many may need to be retracted, it said.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
“The spectrum of ‘fakery’ has ranged from authors suggesting their friends who agree in advance to provide a positive review, to elaborate peer review circles where a group of authors agree to peer review each others’ manuscripts, to impersonating real people, and to generating completely fictitious characters."
[my bolding]
Since when do authors suggest reviewers for their papers? Back in the oooold days when I was writing research papers, it was a matter of principle that we didn't know who had reviewed our papers. It was the responsibility of the journal to find reviewers who knew something about the topic. They typically did that by simply looking up other papers written in the field and requesting those authors review other papers in the same field. Not that difficult, as far as I could tell. Reputable journals made sure that review responsibilities were spread among many researchers so that a bias wouldn't develop. The method wasn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than being allowed to suggest your friends and cronies review your paper. :rolleyes:

Has scientific publication changed that much over the years, or do publication rules differ this much between branches of science?
 
Messages
15,786
Has scientific publication changed that much over the years, or do publication rules differ this much between branches of science?
Based on what we see from the Lancet, they seem to think it's pretty normal to have a close relationship with some "researchers", and to strongly advocate on behalf of their theories. If they thought that might cause outrage in the academic world, they probably wouldn't have been so obvious about it.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Yeah, "major publisher" of shitty open access journals.
I don't agree the open access automatically equates to poor quality, and that long-established journals are better quality. PLoSONE, for example, seems to have a particularly high level of quality control and implements good practice strategies, such as requiring authors to make their data available. BioMed Central have removed these papers whereas other journals might be more tempted to cover up issues. The Lancet posted incorrect information about recovery rates in the PACE trial and it took a complaint to the UK's Press Complaints Commission by the Countess of Mar to get any admission that they had published an opinion rather than a fact.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Since when do authors suggest reviewers for their papers?
I think most journals ask you to suggest reviewers these days when submitting a paper. And I'm pretty sure the psychiatric lobby review each other's papers. I wouldn't be surprised if the peer review process for cognitive-behavioural research is very incestuous. I think they probably struggle to get enough peer reviewers because it's an unpaid job and people have got to do it in their spare time.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
elaborate peer review circles where a group of authors agree to peer review each others’ manuscripts

I have suggested before that this is going on in ME and CFS research, particularly in the UK. It does not have to be a conspiracy though, as the number of claimed "experts" who can be called on is probably quite small, so they review each other and keep alternative hypotheses at bay.

PS What @Bob said.
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
I don't agree the open access automatically equates to poor quality, and that long-established journals are better quality. PLoSONE, for example, seems to have a particularly high level of quality control and implements good practice strategies, such as requiring authors to make their data available. BioMed Central have removed these papers whereas other journals might be more tempted to cover up issues. The Lancet posted incorrect information about recovery rates in the PACE trial and it took a complaint to the UK's Press Complaints Commission by the Countess of Mar to get any admission that they had published an opinion rather than a fact.

I don't agree either that open access automatically equates to poor quality but overall the quality of open access journals is much lower than that of traditional journals and this particular publisher publishes a lot of journals churning out poor quality papers whose only purpose is CV padding.
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
Has scientific publication changed that much over the years, or do publication rules differ this much between branches of science?

I don't know but in medical journals most journals will ask for names and contact information of suggested reviewers when you're submitting a manuscript. I think this is quite reasonable. How else is a journal editor supposed to select peer reviewers? He/she cannot be expected to know the authorities in every narrow area of specialisation.

The odd journal also allows you to name reviewers you don't want reviewing your paper. Sometimes people have a personal grudge against you. Every discipline also has elderly legacy-protecting cranks who want to block other people from publishing work critiquing the status quo by writing hostile reviews regardless of the quality of the work.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
I think they probably struggle to get enough peer reviewers because it's an unpaid job and people have got to do it in their spare time.
Reviewing has always been an unpaid job, but it was considered part of your professional responsibilities. Your own research organization expected you to review papers so that its papers would get reviewed by other people. It's all part of the process. So while technically reviewing is unpaid, all research organizations permitted their researchers to review papers as part of their work day. Review time is just overhead in a research institution.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
How else is a journal editor supposed to select peer reviewers? He/she cannot be expected to know the authorities in every narrow area of specialisation.
The way they always did it -- by looking up papers in the same field. They're professional journals, after all. They have access to many, many papers and researchers. All papers are tagged with topic keywords, so it's not even a tricky search. Journals also consulted professional organizations in the field to get lists of members. It's really not that hard. It's certainly better than being allowed to recommend your friends and supporters as reviewers.

The odd journal also allows you to name reviewers you don't want reviewing your paper. Sometimes people have a personal grudge against you. Every discipline also has elderly legacy-protecting cranks who want to block other people from publishing work critiquing the status quo by writing hostile reviews regardless of the quality of the work.
That makes sense to me. With all the available researchers in the world, there shouldn't be a problem with asking that one or two cranks not be on your reviewer list.