BioMed Central retracts 43 articles that used fabricated reviewers

Following an investigation which revealed attempts to manipulate the peer review process, medical and scientific publisher BioMed Central has retracted 43 articles that were published based on fabricated peer reviewers, the publisher announced in a statement on its blog.

“The apparent intention was to deceive editors and positively influence the outcome of peer review by suggesting fabricated reviewers,” Elizabeth Moylan, Senior Editor for Research Integrity at BioMed Central, wrote on the blog. “Given the scale of the deception, we alerted the Committee on Publication Ethics, and a number of other publishers.”

BioMedCentral, a Science, Technology and Medicine (STM) publisher of 277 open-access, peer-reviewed journals, initiated the investigation in November of 2014 after discovering evidence of repeated attempts to inappropriately influence the peer review process.

PAGE BREAK

A third-party service

At the time of the initial investigation, the range of fraudulent reviewing appeared to include authors soliciting friends to write positive reviews, peer review circles in which a group of authors agrees to peer review each other’s manuscripts, impersonation of real people, and the creation of entirely fictitious characters.

However, the investigation uncovered a more elaborate scenario, in which third party agencies appear to be providing services to authors, including fabricated contact details for peer reviewers during the review process, as well as reviews from these addresses.

These third parties appeared to have conducted the fraud under the guise of offering language editing and submission assistance to authors. Moylan said it is not yet clear whether the manuscripts’ authors were aware that the agencies were proposing fabricated reviewers on their behalf, or whether the authors themselves fabricated the names directly.

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

After contacting the study authors involved and notifying their affiliated institutions, BioMedCentral has begun retracting the articles. Additionally, the publisher has contacted institutions regarding a more extensive list of rejected articles in which fabricated reviewers were provided.

The study authors have provided BioMedCentral with the names of third-party agencies offering manuscript support, “but also guarantee favorable peer review outcomes in return for a fee,” Moylan said in the statement. Other services apparently market authorship of entire papers written by others.

“Clearly, there is a need to distinguish the characteristics of reputable third-party agencies from those that are dishonest,” Moylan said in the statement. “As a result of these inappropriate manipulations, we have turned off the facility for authors to directly enter the names of potential reviewers in our submission system. Other publishers have also followed suit.”

“Perverse incentives”

These inappropriate actions may stem from intense pressure to “publish or perish.”
In her statement on the BioMedCentral blog, Moylan cited a recent workshop on publication bias given by Emily Sena, PhD, who discussed “perverse incentives for ‘impact’ and ‘productivity’ rather than quality or reproducibility of research.

“Although publishers should do as much as possible to preserve best practice in publication ethics — from supporting authors, editors and peer reviewers, to putting in place appropriate checks and balances — a sad reality is that this problem is sourced at a higher level than publishers alone can tackle,” Moylan said in the blog statement.
In its own statement, the Committee on Publication Ethics emphasized the gravity of these attempts to undermine the peer-review process.

“This statement is issued on behalf of COPE after consultation with a variety of publishers to underscore the seriousness with which we take these issues and our determination to address them,” COPE said in the statement. “COPE is working with publishers, publishing organizations and relevant national bodies to determine how best to address this situation in the longer term. Updates will follow as more information becomes available. We encourage anyone with information on these issues to contact COPE directly.”

In addition, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) has also issued a statement on the investigation. PLOS has identified one study rejected by the journal PLOS ONE in which a potentially fabricated reviewer was provided.

“Peer review manipulation is an industry issue and all scientific publications have a responsibility to reinforce and strengthen pre-publication review and their quality assurance processes,” PLOS said in its statement. “Peer review at its best is a continual process of critique and assessment, and PLOS is working to make this process more transparent.”
Anyone with information about potentially fabricated reviewers or third parties engaging in fraudulent peer review activities should contact COPE at cope_administrator@publicationethics.org. – by Jennifer Byrne