A journal has retracted a letter to the editor and removed the online version from its website “because legal concerns were raised to the Publisher,” according to the notice. The retracted letter had referred to multiple journals as “predatory.”
The retracted letter, “A threat to scientific integrity,” appeared in the British Dental Journal in August 2023. The author, Niall McGuinness, director of the MClinDent / DClinDent programme in orthodontics at the Edinburgh Dental Institute, criticized a May 2023 opinion article, “What does the Dentists Act say about orthodontic treatment choice?” for the articles it cited.
In particular, McGuinness called out citations to publications in journals “of questionable probity in regard to publication ethics – ‘predatory’ journals as defined by Jeffrey Beall, of the University of Colorado,” according to an archived version seen by Retraction Watch. He listed four journals cited in the article, including one from the publisher Frontiers and another from MDPI, which appeared on Beall’s list.
A representative from Frontiers told us they had no correspondence with BDJ or Springer Nature regarding this letter. An MDPI representative said the same.
Michael Trenouth, a retired orthodontist and corresponding author of the original opinion article, didn’t respond to our request for comment.
The letter was up until at least October 2023, and was cited in “Identifying Predatory Journals” another letter to the editor published in BDJ.
Sometime later, McGuinness’ letter was removed from the website and overwritten with the retraction notice, which isn’t dated. According to retraction guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics, an article should be removed from online publication in “extremely limited cases” if it’s “clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.”
Besides mentioning the “legal concerns” that led to the paper’s retraction, the notice stated:
The British Dental Journal takes no position with respect to the contents of this letter and this retraction is in agreement with the author of this letter.
McGuinness declined our request for comment.
In an email to Retraction Watch, a representative from Springer, which publishes the journal, said: “We took the concerns raised very seriously and, with the agreement of the author, concluded that retraction and removal of the letter from the journal website was the most appropriate and responsible action to take.”
Labeling publishers as “predatory” often gets pushback. In 2021, a Frontiers editor objected to a Scientometrics study naming the publisher’s journals as predatory, and the paper was retracted. That year, an article in Research Evaluationcalling MDPI journals predatory was retracted and replaced with a less critical version, saying its analysis instead “suggest[s] they may be predatory journals.”
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].
So misguided. Papers should be assessed by their readers, unless they are complete nonsense. “Predatory journals ” is a discourse manipulation by those scientific journals that support the scientific black box. Science is controlled by these people. It is the end of history.
I think there is some merit in what you say. Journals in Frontiers, MDPI etc make their papers open access allowing for all to evaluate/criticise/review, and ultimately science determines. The gate keepers of evidence are journals/editors/boards (for profit companies in most instances) and i see the quality of the most “reputable” journals also very questionable.
Get the science out there for all to scrutinise and the quality “truth” should win through. This often looks like old companies attacking new companies for economic reasons through established relationships with various metric platforms that themeselves have vested interests.
Are there def predatory jnls? Yes! But please target the actual dodgy ones please.
Rather than holding them accountable for the irresponsible publications they carelessly which totally contaminate professional and ethical health care, it is clear that these publishers are protected.
There is clear evidnce that MDPI is totally unprofessional and predatory.
Can you please direct to the clear evidence for a the journals in MDPI stable. Is such evidence absent from other older journals?
If journals are forced to retract articles/letters from their journals due to legal threats then the journal should at least publish the letter in its entirety as part of the retraction so that all may see who made the legal threat. And nope, you don’t retract the names of the guilty. Retract addresses, emails, phone numbers etc. but leave the name intact. And if they have a problem with it so be it. But the scientific community is entitled to know who is sending these legally threatening. letters. Know they enemies and you’re ahead in the game.