Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of
errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond,
each retraction is a big deal.
Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
The
reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and
citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles
published.
You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
The publication is the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC).
It publishes papers with names like “Hydraulic engine mounts: a survey”
and “Reduction of wheel force variations with magnetorheological
devices.”
The field of acoustics covered by the journal is highly technical:
Analytical, computational and experimental studies of vibration phenomena and their control. The scope encompasses all linear and nonlinear vibration phenomena and covers topics such as: vibration and control of structures and machinery, signal analysis, aeroelasticity, neural networks, structural control and acoustics, noise and noise control, waves in solids and fluids and shock waves.
JVC is part of the SAGE group of academic publications.
Here’s how it describes its peer review process:
[The
journal] operates under a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in
which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting
author.
All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.
All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.
An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.
In
2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using
“fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track
by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to
publication.
Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen
of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and
“possibly other authors at this institution.”
After a 14-month
investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake
e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently
successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many
articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one
occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the
aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.
The
statement does not explain how something like this happens. Did the ring
invent names and say they were scholars? Did they use real names and
pretend to be other scholars? Doesn’t anyone check on these things by,
say, picking up the phone and calling the reviewer?
In any case,
SAGE and Nayfeh confronted Chen to give him an “opportunity to address
the accusations of misconduct,” the statement said, but were not
satisfied with his responses.
In May, “NPUE informed SAGE and JVC that Peter Chen had resigned from his post on 2 February 2014.”
Each
of the 60 retracted articles had at least one author and/or one
reviewer “who has been implicated in the peer review” ring, said a separate notice issued by JVC.
Efforts by The Washington Post to locate and contact Chen for comment were unsuccessful.
The whole story is described in a publication called “Retraction Watch” under the headline: “SAGE Publications busts ‘peer review and citation ring.’”
“This one,” it said, “deserves a ‘wow.’”
Update: Some additional information from the SAGE statement: “As
the SAGE investigation drew to a close, in May 2014 Professor Nayfeh’s
retirement was announced and he resigned his position as Editor-in-Chief
of JVC….Three senior editors and an additional 27 associate editors
with expertise and prestige in the field have been appointed to assist
with the day-to-day running of the JVC peer review process. Following
Professor Nayfeh’s retirement announcement, the external senior
editorial team will be responsible for independent editorial control for
JVC.”
Note to readers: Thanks for pointing out my grammatical error. No excuses.
There’s a follow to this story here.
%20629394953%20Shutterstock.png){kind=avatar}
