In the midst of a tumultuous year, the journal Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, a Sage title, is retracting 21 papers after an investigation identified signs of “compromised” peer review.
Clarivate delisted the journal from its Web of Science index in March for failing to meet editorial quality criteria. Founding editor Biren Prasad, who managed the journal since 1992, also retired earlier this year, and the publisher took over management of peer review.
The journal’s online presence also needs attention: Neither of the associate editors listed on its website have been involved for many years, both told Retraction Watch – and one has threatened to sue the journal if she isn’t removed.
The investigation that led to the 21 retractions began after Clarivate notified Sage about quality issues in multiple papers, a spokesperson for the publisher told us.
The investigation “revealed peer review that didn’t meet the standards set by Sage for publication and the potential involvement of a paper mill,” the spokesperson said. More papers may be retracted as the investigation continues.
The retractions were announced in a single notice posted on September 10. It stated:
After an internal investigation Sage found that the peer-review process for these articles was compromised and contains indicators of third-party involvement.
As the peer-review process has not met Sage’s expectations of high quality and ethical peer-review, the publisher cannot uphold the integrity of the research. In line with COPE guidelines and Sage policies, these articles are retracted.
The authors have been informed of this decision using the email addresses provided at submission.
The language of the notice is nearly identical to another notice about a batch of 37 retractions from another Sage engineering journal in July, also for compromised peer review. The two sets of retractions are not related, the spokesperson said, but “both cases reflect wider issues we are facing as an industry.”
Of the nearly two dozen papers retracted from Concurrent Engineering, only one had been flagged on PubPeer. “An efficient approach for brain tumor detection and segmentation in MR brain images using random forest classifier,” which appeared in 2021, contained “tortured phrases,” sleuth Guillaume Cabanac commented in 2022.
Such phrases “typically result from an attempt to avoid plagiarism detection using a paraphrasing software,” he wrote. For example, the authors used the phrases “amiable tumor” and “bogus positive” rather than the commonly used “benign tumor” and “false positive.”
The corresponding author of the paper, Meenal Thayumanavan, listed as an associate professor at Kongunadu College of Engineering and Technology in India, did not respond to our request for comment on the retraction or PubPeer post.
We reached out to the two associate editors listed at the top of Concurrent Engineering’s editorial board for more information about what led to the retractions. Both told us they were no longer involved with the journal, and hadn’t been for many years.
Alice Agogino, an emeritus professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, told us:
I’ve asked many times years ago to be taken off the CERA editorial board. I have not been involved in this journal in over 2 decades. I do not review articles. I do not attend editorial board meetings, nor have I had any correspondence on this.
I just sent email threatening legal action if this is not changed soon on their website. I wouldn’t be surprised if other people listed as editors are no longer involved as well.
Mark Fox, a professor of industrial engineering and computer science at the University of Toronto in Canada, said he was not aware he was listed as an associate editor of the journal:
I have had zero interaction with Concurrent Engineering for many years.
Agogino said she had been involved with the journal when it began:
At the start of the journal I reviewed papers and helped define this new field. It had a legitimate start. As my research changed directions, I asked to step down.
Four other researchers Agogino knows who are also listed on the website told her they “had not been contacted in over a decade,” she said. “No editorial review meetings, nada.”
When we asked about the status of the website and editorial management of the journal, the Sage spokesperson told us:
Sage has been in contact with the Editorial Board with the intention of clarifying status and will be reflecting changes to the board on the website as soon as possible. Furthermore, we have now brought management of peer review for the journal in-house under the leadership of a new Managing Editor.
Prasad, listed as the founding editor on Concurrent Engineering’s website, told us he had retired earlier this year, but had managed the journal and owned the editorial rights since starting it in 1992.
He stood by his management of the journal and its peer review process:
When I was managing the editorial office, I was very fair and honest in seeking independent reviews from at least 4-5 professional reviewers on each paper. In each and every paper, we sought out 4-5 independent reviews, (subject matters experts carefully), and only when I was satisfied that those (at least 4-5) returned reviews were genuine and professionally performed, I moved on to accept or reject each and every paper.
Since all those reviewers were independent reviewers (having the expertise in subject matters), who performed their written evaluations, I trusted them. Those 4-5 independent reviewers were randomly selected by me using SAGE Track Reviewers Database, I have no reasons to doubt any of the (reviewers) haven’t performed their professional duties fairly with great integrity.
As far as I could see, there was nothing wrong on our part in accurately and professionally processing those papers for CERA Journal? [sic] No compromises were ever made by me in my life-time.
He also mentioned a software tool called “the UADT system,” that Sage began using in 2022, which seems to have analyzed submissions and reviews for potentially suspicious activity:
For instance, the UADT computer system generated results were mostly based on choice of non-institutional email-addresses used in correspondences (like Gmail or Yahoo email address) and IP addresses used during manuscript-submission time. It is reasonable to suspect such manuscript submissions perhaps may be belonging for [sic] a Paper Mills category, but rejecting all those submissions as unauthentic, at the outset, purely based on a set of partial users’ data (on authors and reviewers), I considered wrong and unprofessional.
As such, when I was managing the Journal, we further investigated and analyzed the UADT data manually to see if those reviews were professionally done or not and were genuine or fabricated. Only after ascertaining that the reviews were genuine and when there was no doubt about any collaborations between authors and reviewers, that might have taken place I accepted those papers.
He was not involved in the investigation that led to the retractions, he said, and learned about them from our email.
“I feel sorry for the authors of those retracted papers,” he said. “As far as I could see, I have made no compromises in ensuring the professionalisms [sic] and carrying our [sic] my professional duties towards CERA to the best of my ability and knowledge.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution 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].
“independent reviews from at least 4-5 professional reviewers on each paper”
He seems quite sure about the quantity of reviewers… how long did peer review generally take?
I have never, in 30+ years of writing and submitting papers, gotten more than 3 initial reviews on one paper. It’s much more common to get 2, or occasionally 1. I’m not in this field, but still, I have trouble believing this statement. Editors tell me it is excruciatingly hard to find reviewers nowadays, and 4-5 would be well above industry norms. (And, how did the “amiable tumors” get through 4-5 reviewers?)
LOL
my most recent paper is under review by seven (7) reviewers.
it is a well-known journal by Springer-Nature
last year I reviewed a manuscript for a journal (from Asia) as reviewer #2. I accepted to review because it was in my first fieald of study. Later, I found that there were 10 reviewers. Yes, 10!
in another case, I sent out my reviewer report after 4 days from invitation. Then, immediately received email from journal office, something like:
“Thank you for reviewing this manuscript. We received sufficient review, so, have already accepted it.”
which means, they did not need my review for which I spent 4 days reading the entire manuscript multiple times; editing English errors; finding, downloading and reading references; recalculating stats; checking experimental data and graphs; etc etc.
Very likely, they accepted it when they fully received the processing fee from the author; did not need any review
“professional reviewers”.
If they’re paid to review, and do nothing else, they have an incentive to deliver their opinions quickly.
Let me state the obvious: with a journal title like this, generic and bland, you are bound to receive generic and bland paper mill articles. A quick glance at the most cited papers from this journal reveals they are generic AI/ML papers.
When will publishers finally realize that a journal’s credibility hinges on an effective Editor-in-Chief & competent & present editors? Sounds like Sage has really let the ball drop here over the years, by not taking seriously the role that scientists/experts need to play to ensure that peer review will be up to scratch…
Credibility is not much of an issue with the profit margins these publishers are able to maintain. If the house of cards collapses it will be after current management has retired.
They’ll be fine. Science may not be, but that’s rather beside the point. You mistake the business model, I think.
See also Wikipedia, Sage Publishing, OASPA membership, for the occasional course adjustment. Or, perhaps, Gresham’s Law. (Note: it was not always thus – within living memory. Powerful forces are at work.)
“I have not been involved in this journal in over 2 decades”!!
how come; an academic profssional has been in a job for “2 decades” without knowing it?
involving in a job like editorial board of a scholarly journal brings accountability as well as prestige and credit by listing a long list of journals in the lab website
This comment would look less like a hit piece if you flagged where this editorial involvement is reflected in the individual’s lab or vita. I looked, she doesn’t claim it. How come? Easy, she didn’t know they still claimed her affiliation even after she stepped down. Easy foolish cynicism isn’t a good look.
> This comment would look less like a hit piece if you flagged where this editorial involvement is reflected in the individual’s lab or vita.
It took me about zero time to find and archive this page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230917031541/https://best.berkeley.edu/alice-m-agogino-professional-activities/
“Editorial Board, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications (CERA), Academic Press, Limited, Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Publishers”
Sure, given the obsolete info about the publisher, the entry may also be obsolete. On the other hand, it is very convenient to stuff your CV with dozens of professional memberships, then denounce any one of them only when it is discovered as problematic.
Another criminal practice from scientific publishers is that the editor sends a letter to authors whose manuscripts are in peer-review process, asking the authors to cite recent papers from the same journal in order to be finally accepted. It’s amazing how this practice keeps going on. The impact factor and therefore the price of the related journals artificially rise. Last time I saw such letter was few days ago and involved a well known scientific publisher.
I’m more familiar with this type of misbehavior from referees, tolerated by editors. I’ve never actually been the target of it but such things are talked about privately, and need to be talked about a good deal more in public. If I did get such a request I would perhaps publish it on my website with a rude remark.
Commercial publishers don’t necessarily know (or for that matter much care) how their journals are being managed, so the responsibility would seem to lie with the individual editor, typically.