A research group based in Pakistan has had 10 of their papers retracted from Wiley’s Food Science & Nutrition based on flaws in the peer review process.
According to the notices, which were identical for each article, “the editorial office found unambiguous evidence that the manuscript was accepted solely based on compromised and insufficient reviewer reports.”
The following articles have been retracted:
- Tamarind: A diet-based strategy against lifestyle maladies [2019] (13 citations according to Clarivate’s Web of Science)
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and immunity booster green foods: A mini review [2020] (77 citations)
- Exploring the prophylactic role of soy isoflavones against polycystic ovarian syndrome [2021] (0 citations)
- Biochemical profile of milk thistle (Silybum Marianum L.) with special reference to silymarin content [2021] (25 citations)
- Effect of adding Aloe vera jell on the quality and sensory properties of yogurt [2021] (8 citations)
- Consequences of hydrogenated vegetable fat substitution with Ajwa seed oil on physicochemical and nutritional aspects of functional cookies [2020] (2 citations)
- Impact of drying methods on composition and functional properties of date powder procured from different cultivars [2019] (9 citations)
- Exploring the amino acid profile and microbial properties of locally sweet preserved kachra hareer (Terminalia chebula) [2021] (4 citations)
- Survival and stability of free and encapsulated probiotic bacteria under simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in ice cream [2020] (45 citations)
- Health lipid indices and physicochemical properties of dual fortified yogurt with extruded flaxseed omega fatty acids and fibers for hypercholesterolemic subjects [2020] (25 citations)
The authors of the papers did not agree with the retractions. One of them, Farhan Saeed, an associate professor of food science at the Government College University, Faisalabad in Pakistan, said he and his co-authors have “serious concerns” about the journal.
“The review process is entirely under the control of the editor, who selects the reviewers and receives their comments. If the reports were insufficient or unreliable, the editor should have rejected the article at the time of the decision,” Saeed said. He called the journal’s decision to retract the papers now “concerning.”
He added:
We have been informed that third parties, unknown to us, are complaining about the ambiguities and that targeting our articles is not in line with the journal policy. The corresponding author requested the editorial office to reconsider their decision. If there is anything at our end that has created ambiguity, we will ensure that it does not happen again in the future.
Loan Nguyen, an associate publisher for Food Science & Nutrition told us:
Once we were alerted to external concerns, we acted swiftly to open an investigation related to this author and their papers. As a result of this work, undertaken by the journal leadership, along with our publisher, the peer review team, and the Integrity Assurance and Case Resolution team, we decided to retract ten articles. We had, additionally, implemented a number of measures that enables us to identify potentially compromised research content, thus safeguarding the journal’s research integrity.
The concerns were raised on social media about potential language issues in the articles, a spokesperson for Wiley said. The publisher launched an investigation and identified issues with peer review, leading to the articles’ retraction, the spokesperson said.
The other corresponding authors on the papers, Muhammad Sajid Arshad, an assistant professor at the Department of Food Science at Government College University and Faqir Muhammad Anjum, the former vice chancellor of the University of Gambia, West Africa did not respond to our request for comment.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
“The concerns were raised on social media about potential language issues in the articles, a spokesperson for Wiley said. The publisher launched an investigation and identified issues with peer review, leading to the articles’ retraction, the spokesperson said.”
I understand that when discrepancies occur and editing practices come to light that retractions should happen, but this seems a bit unfair not to give the authors direct communication and an avenue for a potential edit or resubmission especially if the principal disagreement was indeed on language from the ESL authors (which, you know, ‘The modern-day review article is an exquisite attempt to demonstrate the extreme therapeutic potential of tamarind fruit’ clearly needs some editing). At the very least I think the language in the retraction should be more definitive if the editorial board agreed that there wouldn’t be a hope of this making it through peer review with an alternative set of reviewers.
I have a few cases which seems to have undergone compromised peer review process.
Whom shall I contact?