Retractions of Journal Articles – Gaming the System

Retractions of Journal Articles – Gaming the System
A recent discussion in this group drew attention to an article (12 March 2015) explaining how questionable editorial and self-citation practices associated with two Elsevier journals and their editor-in-chief were exposed (http://bit.ly/1CWPdxb). There is some question as to whether certain articles were peer reviewed at all, and it is possible that some will be retracted, much as 16 papers were retracted from three Elsevier journals in December last year due to fake peer reviews (http://bit.ly/1zcS9CK).

Elsevier is hardly alone, however, in recently encountering serious problems with peer-reviewing practices. Just last week BioMed Central (BMC) retracted 43 papers published in 13 different BMC journals ‘because the peer-review process was inappropriately influenced and compromised’ (http://bit.ly/1EUWtEo). Last summer 60 articles were retracted from the Journal of Vibration and Control published by SAGE when a peer review and citation ring was uncovered (http://bit.ly/1ohLv3F). Investigations in that case resulted in the resignation of not only the ringleader from the National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan, but also Taiwan’s Education Minister. A little online searching will reveal other instances of misconduct – more than any scholar with integrity would wish to find.

In most cases, low scholarly standards and a lack of intellectual ethics are to blame, with some of the researchers involved also having papers retracted for plagiarism, major mistakes while conducting experiments, instrument error and even ‘forgetting’ to acknowledge coauthors and funding agencies. However, since many instances of malpractice seem to stem from authors’ suggesting their own reviewers and creating false email addresses for those ‘reviewers,’ who then become part of a journal’s database, some fingers are also pointing at the procedures currently used by journals for selecting and verifying reviewers. The publishers concerned are working to prevent misconduct in the future, of course, and they should be credited with discovering and revealing individual cases, but the problem has far-reaching implications.

Papers that are later retracted are being read, used and cited daily, and while researchers can keep an eye on journal web sites and Retraction Watch (at http://bit.ly/1GP2FAW), papers are often not retracted until new research using the questionable material has already been published. Articles that have not been properly reviewed may present valid research, but they also may not, so the situation has created dangerous yet undefined territory amidst the enormous body of material published by scientific journals.

Although such misconduct is clearly an example of the few exploiting a system that many use appropriately, tidbits of bad news tend to be heavily publicised, while the majority of excellent research remains unsung in the public eye. This is far too likely to create a detrimental image of science and scientists for taxpayers and agencies that fund vital scientific research. Effective and immediate prevention strategies are desperately needed. Goals grander than promoting careers are at stake here – the advancement of knowledge, the improvement of life and the education of younger generations, among others – and to achieve them successfully there is simply no substitute for careful work and intellectual integrity among researchers, authors, reviewers and editors.