Springer Nature journal has retracted over 200 papers since September

Optical and Quantum Electronics, a Springer Nature journal, has retracted more than 200 papers since the start of September, and continues issuing retraction notices en masse. 

According to the notices, which have similar wording, the retractions come after the publisher identified problems with the articles including compromised peer review, inappropriate or irrelevant references, and nonsensical phrases, suggesting blind use of AI or machine-translation software.

“These investigations are based on intelligence from past work alongside whistleblower information,” Chris Graf, director of research integrity at Springer Nature in Oxford, UK, told Retraction Watch. But Graf declined to share the specifics of the inquiry: “We need to keep details of these investigations confidential to ensure that we do not inform the efforts of individuals who may engage in unethical activities.” 

Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse, France, first highlighted issues with the journal in a February post on X. Cabanac has created software that spots odd language in academic papers he dubbed “tortured phrases,” which seem to be the result of attempts to circumvent plagiarism checks. 

His Problematic Paper Screener had flagged nearly 50 articles in Optical and Quantum Electronics riddled with tortured phrases, mostly published in 2023. “I suspect papermill submissions + compromised peer review,” he wrote on X at the time, referring to shady services that sell authorship slots and citations on papers. 

Cabanac also posted his concerns about the papers, along with their tortured phrases, on PubPeer. In his post, he called on the publisher to retract or correct the papers that are not reliable. 

Optical and Quantum Electronics has three editors-in-chief, with some recent turnover. Xuelin Yang of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China joined the journal in January. Daoxin Dai of Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, had stepped down in November 2023 after taking the post in April 2021. 

Neither Yang nor Dai replied to requests for comment. 

Salah Obayya, director of the Center for Photonics and Smart Materials at the Zewail City of Science and Technology in Giza, Egypt, is one of the journal’s other editors-in-chief. He joined in June 2023, taking over from Trevor Benson of the University of Nottingham, UK, whose tenure ended in December 2023. 

A thank-you note from Benson on the journal website reads: 

I have served in the Editor in Chief role since mid-2005, during which time metrics confirm that the journal has grown significantly in size, stature, and reputation. Although I officially retired in July 2000, I have kept research active in seeing PhDs and projects through to completion, and with a small emeritus Fellowship from the Leverhulme Trust. As this activity is winding down, I feel the time is right for someone new to help drive the journal forward. 

Neither Obayya nor Benson responded to requests for comment. We also didn’t hear back from Marian Marciniak, the journal’s third editor-in-chief, who is based at the National Institute of Telecommunications Department of Transmission and Optical Technology in Warsaw, Poland. 

Graf added: 

Alongside this work and with the Editors-in-Chief, we have been strengthening the processes for all guest-edited issues at the journal such that no unsolicited proposals are considered, an editorial board member or one of the Editors-in-Chief must be part of the Guest Editor team, and new research integrity tools have been added to the front end of our submission process. All editorial board members have also undertaken extensive research integrity training.

Earlier this month, Springer Nature began an initial public offering (IPO), noting in its prospectus that increase in undeclared use of AI in the publication process and infiltration by paper mills is a significant threat to the publishing business. 

The publisher noted that earlier this year it identified “a significant number” of papers published by its journals originated from paper mills, adding: 

The paper mills used guest-edited collections and fake peer reviews to evade quality control. While a large proportion of the papers and collections were brought to our attention by a third-party individual, some had already been flagged or identified through other means, and were already being investigated by our dedicated internal research integrity group. These investigations continue and could result in many retractions, which could negatively impact our reputation.

Another Springer Nature journal that seems to be retracting papers en masse is Environmental Science and Pollution Research. The journal was one of 17 that this year lost its Journal Impact Factor — which is sometimes used to evaluate researchers and their work — due to suspected citation manipulation. 

In its IPO prospectus, Springer Nature had noted that if journals are excluded from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports database, “this could have a material detrimental effect on the results of our operations.” 

In July, a spokesperson for Clarivate, the firm that publishes Journal Impact Factors, told Retraction Watch the journals were suppressed from their report for having  “anomalous citation behavior, including where there is evidence of excessive journal self-citation and/or citation stacking (which involves two or more journals). We do not presume a motive or accuse these journals of wrongdoing.”

As Retraction Watch has previously reported, Cabanac and fellow sleuth Alexander Magazinov — software engineer at Yandex, an IT company based in Moscow, Russia — have previously flagged around 1,850 papers published by Environmental Science and Pollution Research for suspicious citations, tortured phrases, and undeclared use of AI in papers. By our count, the journal has so far retracted 225 papers as part of this batch. 

A search for Environmental Science and Pollution Research on PubPeer yields some of the flagged and retracted studies.

One 2023 article retracted by Environmental Science and Pollution Research on 25 September, was titled: “Association of the corona virus (Covid-19) epidemic with environmental risk factors.” This study has so far been cited two times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

On a PubPeer thread about this study, its corresponding author, Majid Farhadi of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in Iran, wrote: “We do not insist on using invalid articles and we ask you to agree to the correction. We are prepared to remove invalid articles.”

Another 2021 study, titled, “The modulatory potential of herbal antioxidants against oxidative stress and heavy metal pollution: plants against environmental oxidative stress,” was pulled on 17 September. This study has been cited 32 times so far. 

But none of the study authors agreed with the study’s retraction. “Following the notification from the journal, we conducted a thorough review of our paper and found the sentences to be coherent and the phrases to adhere to standard conventions,” wrote corresponding author Zahra Ebrahimi of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Iran, on a PubPeer thread about the study. 

Ebrahimi added on PubPeer: 

It’s important to note that English is not the native language for any of the authors, and while we made efforts to refine the clarity of our text using tools like Grammarly before submission, we acknowledge that it may not mirror the fluency of native English speakers. Furthermore, [at] the paper’s revision stage, in response to the journal’s request for language editing to ensure text clarity and fluency, we engaged the services of NedMedica, viz., known as Article X as well, a language editing service by Brieflands company to ensure the high quality of the paper… 

Ebrahimi disagrees that the study’s peer review process was compromised, noting: 

Reviewers made a total of 23 comments on our initial paper and requested improvements even in the smallest details. Upon reviewing the extensive comments provided, it is evident that the review process followed the standard procedures. It is important to note that we were kept blind to the peer review process, and thus, we remain unaware of the identities of the reviewers involved. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that none of the editorial board members are based in Iran, and we have had no prior personal or professional relationships with them.

She does, however, acknowledge some errors and oversights in the study’s references but remains convinced that the article’s validity remains intact. She wrote: 

…it is important to highlight that the main issue in the article lies in the placement of the references rather than the validity of the references themselves. This discrepancy stemmed from the technical challenges with reference management software. We want to assure you that the references provided are capable of supporting all the claims made in the manuscript, provided they are cited in the correct locations. The scientific validity of the article remains intact. We had prepared a correction to the latest version of the manuscript we had, wherein we will indicate the appropriate placement for citing each manuscript. Ensuring the references are placed in their correct locations, removing the Vickers citation, and adding four references that were previously omitted due to technical issues, we have ensured that all claims made in the manuscript are adequately supported.

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].