The world's scientific and social network for malaria professionals
Subscribe to free Newsletter | 9910 malaria professionals are enjoying the free benefits of MalariaWorld today

Scandal at BioMed Central: 43 papers retracted

April 2, 2015 - 16:53 -- Bart G.J. Knols

Last Friday the Washington Post published an article about fake peer review and how it has affected the UK publisher BioMed Central. At least 43 papers have been retracted so far and we have not found this list to see if it included papers published in the Malaria Journal or Parasites & Vectors. How is it possible that such scandals emerge, one could wonder...

First, have a look at the article in the Washington Post, and read what BioMed Central has to say in an online commentary (its own website by the way). The publishers can argue of course that they are not to blame. Authors that suggest peer reviewers during their online submission process have apparently faked email addresses of suggested reviewers and linked these email addresses to their own accounts. Very clever: You get to review your own manuscript. So you fill in the names of well-respected names in the field of your work (Professor so-and-so) and then fill an email address that links to your own address.

The problem of course is that editors are under severe pressure form all angles. Authors want to see their work published as quickly as possible, and the publisher wants to push out as many papers as possible (the more papers, the more profit). And so the editors, one may assume, are pleased to see the names of authoritative individuals put forward by the authors. A few clicks later the manuscript is on its way back to the authors...

But there are questions to be asked here. Does the editor not have email contact with the reviewers? Or is everything arranged through an automated system (this is how I have experienced the review process with BMC)? Either way, if the editor would have contact with the reviewers this would reduce the likelihood of fraud.

Next, do reviewers and editors never meet and discuss submitted manuscripts? One could imagine that this whole issue of fake peer review should have surfaced a long time ago if the editor would directly communicate with reviewers (at a conference or simply by Skype or a phonecall). This apparently is not happening.

And then: Do editors check the submitted reviews carefully enough? And should glorious reviews not somehow set off alarm bells if the manuscript itself is mediocre? But can editors really keep track of all this? The Malaria Journal published 512 articles in 2014. Impossible for the editor (Marcel Hommel) to keep track of this huge 'turnover'.

Our view remains unchanged: scientific publishing as a profit-making business is asking for trouble. 

 

Comments

Submitted by jasper Ogwal Okeng (not verified) on

My suspicion is being confirmed. I receive review requests from unfamiliar editors/journals. No wonder the manuscripts are in irrelevant area of my specialty.

Bart G.J. Knols's picture
Submitted by Bart G.J. Knols on

The editor of Parasites and Vectors has informed us that none of the 43 retracted papers originate from that journal.

Submitted by Kamaraju raghavendra (not verified) on

Nice to get clarification on non existence of any of the parasite and vectors published manuscripts in the 43 publications. In any case in the larger interest of Science can Bio Med Central come out with the list of 43 publications to make the issue subtle or vindicate the claim.

Submitted by Surprised (not verified) on

Two of the Associate Editors of P&V regularly publish in P&V. Doesn't it seem awkward that one of the associate editors, in 2014, published 10 of his papers in P&V - the same journal in which he holds the position of as associate editor?
It was appalling to see authors contributions of the Editor, such as - "critically reviewed the manuscript" (Parasites & Vectors 2015, 8:89 doi:10.1186/s13071-015-0699-3.)
Isn't it an example of the conflict of interests for the Editor? Especially in the times in which H-index and scientific productivity (measured by the number of published papers) become the Gods of the funding bodies?
Technically it is allowed to be one of the authors and one the editors of the journal at the same time however, very elegant it is not. Ethically clear neither.

Submitted by Chris Arme on

I don't normally respond to anonymous comments; however, this one is so surprising that I shall make an exception to it.

No P&V editor who publishes in the journal, has access to the process of handling their MSS, which is done by one of the other journal editors, usually the Editor-in-Chief.

This is common practice in other journals with which I have been involved.

'Critically reviewed the manuscript' means before submission.

I shall not contribute further to this conversation so long as the correspondent remains anonymous.