A publisher has identified a ring of three individuals who acted as guest editors for three special issues. These individuals used nine fake accounts to peer review manuscripts. For some manuscripts, the fake identities were used alongside legitimate reviewers, while in other cases they were used exclusively. The publisher has also identified several submissions to those special issues where the fake identities were included in the authors’ list, presumably to lend them credibility. A large proportion of submissions included numerous citations to the guest editors’ articles, included on submission or during the peer review process.
The publisher intends to retract the two published articles where the fake identities were used as coauthors. The published articles reviewed by the fake identities have also been re-evaluated. Some of these will need to be retracted due to lack of scientific soundness, while other articles have been found to be sound so they will remain part of the published literature.
The publisher has noted via Publons that the guest editors have acted as peer reviewers for other publishers, and it is possible that they have also been involved, or intend to get involved, in organising special issues.
The publisher is planning to issue a public statement to explain their actions and alert the scientific community to this manipulation.
Questions for COPE Council
- Should the names of the guest editors and/or the fake identities be disclosed to the community?
- Alternatively, this information could be shared confidentially with COPE so that other publishers have access to this information.
Advice on this case is from a small number of COPE Council Members. Most cases on the COPE website are presented to the COPE Forum where advice is offered by a wider group of COPE Members and COPE Council Members. Advice on individual cases is not formal COPE guidance.
It is important to be cautious about sharing individual names publicly before there is evidence of misconduct. If there is any possibility that the allegations are unfounded, wrongly targeted or fail to acknowledge other mitigating factors, then there is a risk of defaming the individuals concerned and their institutions, and also of exposing the publisher to an unnecessary risk. Consulting with the publisher’s legal team is advisable, before sharing the findings with anyone, keeping in mind the laws of libel in the publisher’s and the authors' jurisdictions. The publisher should speak to a legal advisor before making any statement. There is always a struggle between confidentiality and stopping repeated offenders of scientific misconduct. There is clearly a public benefit rationale for sharing the information, but the publisher should look for legal advice on how to share the information and what should be said. The identities of the authors will be evident when a retraction notice has been issued, and it can then be reported that they have been retracted as a matter of public record.
COPE would advise sharing the findings with the authors' institution(s) so that appropriate investigations can be undertaken by those institutions.
Sharing the information confidentially with COPE could also have legal implications if there are concerns about defamation. In fact, there could potentially be greater risk of harm, because the authors would at least have immediate knowledge of an open accusation and the ability to dispute it, whereas private accusations could circulate for a long period of time and cause irrevocable damage before the accused hear about it.