107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud

107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud

The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.

It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.

But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review.

Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,” said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they aren’t always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: “When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time,” Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so “this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.”

It is good to see you are still gathering the truth about modern science, Sci - as like as not some of the money for that research came from donations of various sorts - those responsible really should be a jail.

David

It is good to see you are still gathering the truth about modern science, Sci - as like as not some of the money for that research came from donations of various sorts - those responsible really should be a jail.

And of course, as the subject of the research is cancer, if these instances of scientific fraud had been successful enough, the cost could have been worse than just financial. I think the culprits should have the book thrown at them. Just retracting the papers isn't an adequate response.

But I don't think what's happening here should be described as science. It's really the antithesis of science. It's a question of how the scientific method can be subverted by considerations of funding or career advancement.