国际最大的学术出版集团德国springer再次宣布重磅消息，其旗下10本杂志撤回共64篇因为伪同行评审论文。这是继其旗下出版社BMC因为同样原因撤回43篇论文后再次宣布的大规模论文撤回消息。这说明该出版集团针对这一问题进行了系统清查，也说明这一问题的严重性，例如这次涉及到的杂志有10本，数量达64篇。相信肯定存在漏网之鱼。而且这只是springer一家，这家出版社是档次比较高的，例如著名《自然》就已经属于该集团。那么其他杂志和出版集团是否会采用同样的措施，系统清理存在类似情况的论文。我们拭目以待。
A leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.
Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new company Springer Nature.
The cull comes after similar discoveries of ‘fake peer review’ by several other major publishers, including London-based BioMed Central, an arm of Springer, which began retracting 43 articles in March citing "reviews from fabricated reviewers". The practice can occur when researchers submitting a paper for publication suggest reviewers, but supply contact details for them that actually route requests for review back to the researchers themselves.
The Springer investigation began in November 2014 after a journal editor-in-chief noticed irregularities in contact details for peer reviewers. These included e-mail addresses that the editor they suspected were bogus but were accompanied by the names of real researchers, says William Curtis, executive vice-president for publishing,medicine and biomedicine at Springer. The investigation, which focused on articles for which authors had suggested their own reviewers, detected numerous fabricated peer-review reports. Affected authors and their institutions have been told about the investigation’s findings, says Curtis.
Future vetting
Springer declined to name the articles or journals involved. However, a search of the publisher’s website identified more than 40 retraction notices dated between 17 and 19 August 2015 for articles in 8 Springer journals.
Springer now plans to vet peer-reviewer suggestions more carefully, Curtis says. Its journals may in future request the supply of institutional e-mail addresses or Scopus author IDs for reviewers.
When BioMed Central uncovered its peer-review problem, senior editor for research integrity Elizabeth Moylan notedthat some of the issues seemed to involve companies that charge scientists to edit their manuscripts and help them with journal submission. Curtis says that Springer has “limited evidence” to implicate such third parties in some of thecases it uncovered.
Double-checks
Some publishers, such as BioMed Central and San Francisco-based PLoS, have ended the practice of author-suggested reviewers in response to fake peer review. But Elizabeth Wager, a publication consultant and former chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), says that “less drastic” measures, such as double-checking non-institutional e-mail addresses given for reviewers, would allow journals to hold on to the expertise that these reviewers often provide.
“The particular problem off ake review comes about when authors are allowed to suggest possible peer reviewers,” says Wager. “The system sounds good. The trouble is when people game the system and use it as a loophole.”
The involvement of third-party companies in bogus peer review is “more worrying”, Wager adds, because it could mean that the practiceis more systemic and extends beyond a handful of rogue authors.
Virginia Barbour, the current chair of COPE, says that Springer has informed the committee about the investigation. “It is important publishers take rapid but careful action, as here,” she says.
http://www.nature.com/news/faked-peer-reviews-prompt-64-retractions-1.18202
Retraction of articles from Springerjournals
London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015
Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across anumber of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whateverwe can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter.
The peer-review process is one of the corner stones of quality, integrity and reproducibility in research, and we take our responsibilities as its guardians seriously. We are now reviewing our editorial processes across Springer to guard against this kind of manipulationof the peer review process in future.
In all of this, our primary concern is for the research community. A research paper is the result of funding investment, institutional commitment and months of work by the authors, and publishing outputs affect careers, funding applications and institutional reputations.
We have been in contact with the corresponding authors and institutions concerned, and will continue to work with them.
from 科学网 孙学军 2015-8-19 07:25
附：科学网新闻 作者：赵河雨 来源：科学网2015/8/18 14:29:09
Springer因同行评议造假撤销64篇论文
据Retraction Watch网站消息，近日，因论文同行评议造假，Springer出版商撤销了旗下十本杂志中的64篇论文。
Springer发出声明称，Springer的编辑发现了伪造的邮箱地址，随后进一步调查发现了造假的同行评议。经过更加深入的调查Springer认定64篇论文牵连此事。
今年早些时候，Springer旗下的生物医学核心期刊就因同行评议造假撤销了43篇论文。从2012年以来，大约有1500篇文章被撤销，据Retraction Watch网站统计，因伪造同行评议而被撤销的论文占据其中的15%。
Springer称将采取一系列措施来阻止同行评议造假的再次发生。（科学网 赵河雨/编译） |
