A group of authors has lost a pair of papers in a computing journal for monkeying with the peer review process.
The first author on both articles was Mohamed Abdel-Basset of the Department of Operations Research in the Faculty of Computers and Informatics at Zagazig University, in Sharqiya. Mai Mohamad, also of Zagazig, is the only co-author to appear on both papers, which were published in Future Generation Computer Systems, an Elsevier journal.
As we reported previously, the journal has some experience with publishing highjinx.
The latest cases involve the 2019 article titled “A novel and powerful framework based on neutrosophic sets to aid patients with cancer.” According to the retraction notice:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
After a thorough investigation, the Editor has concluded post publication that the acceptance of this article was partly based upon the positive advice of two illegitimate reviewer reports. Although purportedly real reviewer accounts, the Editor has concluded that these were not of appropriate, independent reviewers. No evidence was available to the journal that the reviewer accounts were provided by the corresponding author as suggested reviewers during the submission of the article.
Apologies are offered to the reviewers whose identity was assumed and to the readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process.
The notice for the second paper, “A framework for risk assessment, management and evaluation: Economic tool for quantifying risks in supply chain,” reads similarly.
Abdel-Basset did not respond to requests for comment.
As readers of this blog well know, we’ve been writing about faked peer review for roughly a decade, and we’ve close to 1,000 retractions of such papers in that time. Back in 2014, we reported in Nature that publishers — including Elsevier — were aware of the vulnerabilities of their review procedures and talked about taking steps to eliminate the problem.
Perhaps, ahem, they meant to leave the solution up to…future generations.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
That is a weird statement.
If you knew that these were not recommended reviewers, you would presumably just say so. So what this appears to mean is, “Our recordkeeping does not allow us to determine whether these reviewers were suggested by the authors.” Not a good situation. Shouldn’t the journal have this information in their submission system?
It is a very weird statement. I assume it likely hadn’t been proofread and was missing a couple words that completely changed the meaning.
I think they meant “ No evidence was available to the journal ON the reviewer accounts THAT were provided by the corresponding author as suggested reviewers during the submission of the article.”
Otherwise, as Mary Kuhner points out, it makes no sense. Plenty of irony in the editorial office bypassing editorial review. Do they need a correction?
I agree with Mary Kuhner & Mary Kuhner the message is weird. How did the journal release a message like that, it means no editor checked the reviewer accounts. Strangely, the EiC and the editorial board of the journal did not do their role and verify the review process else after 2 years of publishing the papers!!. I believe it is the mistake of the journal NOT the authors, as the journal and editors have to select the reviewers; how the authors know the reviewers, and it should be a blind process.
I think there is something vague in this retraction, as there are other author names, which did not release out in their message. These things need corrections; otherwise, the journal’s reputation and their ethical editors did not follow the legal process of investigation to release a convincing retraction notice !!!