Soft Computing, a Springer Nature title, has retracted at least 335 papers this year, many from issues with guest editors.
The mass retractions began in July, with the latest appearing November 4.
The retraction notes contain identical language to notices in Environmental Science and Pollution Research and Optical and Quantum Electronics, which have also been retracting articles en masse this year:
An investigation by the publisher found a number of articles, including this one, with a number of concerns, including but not limited to compromised editorial handling and peer review process, inappropriate or irrelevant references or not being in scope of the journal or guest-edited issue. Based on the investigation’s findings the publisher no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.
Sleuths using the Problematic Paper Screener have flagged more than 700 articles in the journal that cite retracted or otherwise problematic papers or contain tortured phrases, nonstandard language that hints at the use of a thesaurus or paraphrasing software to avoid plagiarism detection.
Content has been retracted from at least 10 guest-edited issues, according to a Springer Nature spokesperson. The publisher assesses each article individually rather than retracting entire issues, the spokesperson said.
Springer Nature’s investigation into the affected guest-edited issues “is nearing completion,” but not finished yet, Chris Graf, director of research integrity at the publisher, told Retraction Watch in a statement, indicating more retractions may still come.
Besides retracting articles, the publisher has made changes at the journal including an update to its editorial board, ensuring the editor-in-chief oversees every paper, no longer considering unsolicited proposals for special issues, and adding new research integrity tools to the submission process, Graf said.
“These retractions are part of our ongoing work to identify and act on any papers of concern, informed by our own investigations and whistleblower information,” Graf said. “Our message to those who attempt to manipulate the publication process and undermine trust in research is clear: our commitment to ensuring the integrity of our content is ironclad and we will not hesitate to take action.”
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].
These journals are not new acquisitions by Springer Nature as far as I know, and the problems with them were very blatant. Pardon me if I don’t really see this “ironclad” commitment to research integrity.
Publishing quality declined due to the guest editors? What a surprise!
$pringer is all about $$$$.
Anything gets published?
Put it this way, the reviews are becoming biased right from selection of reviewers. Single-blind review helps this. It will be better to list the reviewers to and bar them.
Indeed!
Money can buy anything even referees and editors and even justice.
Few authors report similar data with few manipulations to make it .. results and outcome is dependent upon their manipulation
If both paper are counted and taken.read carefully, they are same data used with manipulation in different articles
If you carefully observe all articles you can find the fabrications.. just ask author data and its done.
An article published in BMC ecology and evolution cited my article incorrectly – found out via ResearchGate this week!