Another journal distances itself from cash for citations after Retraction Watch report

A second journal has said it was unaware of a cash for citations scheme that named it as a participant, following our reporting in August.

The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research (JCTR) was one of five journals listed by Innoscience Research that Innoscience would pay $6 per citation to its work, as we reported on August 31. On October 9, another of those journals said it “will not entertain cash requests from the individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we pay up.”

In “JCTR’s statement on ‘paid citations’ reported by Retraction Watch,” dated October 10, editor in chief Michal Heger writes:

At the end of September, the editorial team of JCTR in Singapore received inquiries from authors regarding cash remuneration for researchers who cite articles published in JCTR in their own papers. This practice was addressed in a recent publication on the Retraction Watch website under the title “Publisher offers cash for citations“. This incident was addressed to editor-in-chief and managing editor of JCTR on October 8th.

The editorial board of JCTR attests that none of the in-house editors and journal staff were cognizant of these practices up until October 8th. The editors and journal staff were never involved in any fashion in gaming the metrics for any purpose, and specifically for purposes of citation gauging. We strongly condemn such unethical practices and will never engage in such acts. Accordingly, JCTR will not entertain cash requests from individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we provide any payment for citations to JCTR articles.

Key editorial staff members convened on October 10th to properly resolve this issue. We have learned that JCTR was listed as “related journal” on Innoscience website for 10 months until mid-August. These unauthorized campaign operations by Innoscience with respect to JCTR were ceased immediately. JCTR did not and will never provide financial support or any means of support to such unauthorized campaign acts.

We would also like to clarify that our editorial decisions on submissions, selection of editorial board members, and the integrity of published articles are not affected by the commercial entities that were formerly associated with the campaign.

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

2 thoughts on “Another journal distances itself from cash for citations after Retraction Watch report”

  1. This cash for citations scheme appears to be the publishing equivalent of the Chinese vendors on Amazon that offer free products for 5-star reviews of their products.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.