After we reported on a new scam to publish papers on webpages remarkably similar to those of Elsevier, Springer, the American Medical Association and other major publishers, the company linked to the clones denied any role in producing the content they contain.
Until we reached out for comment, the company “Springer Global Publication” – which is not affiliated with Springer Nature – had advertised a variety of services on its website, including finding a writer for research papers, editing manuscripts, developing research proposals, analyzing data and managing the peer review process, a collection of services which is a classic attribute of a paper mill. After we emailed them, they removed descriptions of these services from their website, as well as links to papers published in cloned journals, but did not respond before publication of our story.
After our story appeared, we received an email signed by “Administrator – Springergloballtd.com,” in which the company said it did not “create, review, or manage the content associated with the identifiers we issue.”
The company stated:
We would like to emphasize that our organization is not a publisher, nor do we operate any journals, cloned or otherwise. Our primary role is to provide Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) as a form of online identification for assignments, research papers, and various other digital content at the request of our customers.
“Our responsibility begins and ends with providing identifiers for submitted content, and we do not evaluate, verify, or publish the content ourselves,” the statement continued. “Our clients are responsible for the content they submit and its intended use.”
On a page still available on Springer Global’s website, and archived here, the company lists 16 journals as “Our Publication [sic],” including “JAMA Ophthalmology” and several others with titles matching journals from major publishers. The journal pages link to webpages for articles closely resembling the websites of the original publishers.
“While we acknowledge that some submissions may contain journal names or designs that resemble those of established publishers, it is important to note that our role does not extend to verifying the authenticity of submitted content,” the company told us.
The company also stated it does not “create, host, or manage the webpages associated with the identifiers.” These pages are “provided to us by our clients, who assume full responsibility for their content and appearance,” it claimed.
The company asked for us to share “specific cases or evidence that indicate misuse of our services.” We provided a list of DOIs published in our story, and asked if they would take any action.
In another email signed by the “Administrator,” the company replied:
As a relatively new entity in this domain, this situation has been a significant learning experience for us. Through your findings and our subsequent investigations, we have recognized that there were indeed issues that require our immediate attention and corrective action.
…
We are prepared to take any steps necessary to resolve this matter, including the review and possible retraction or correction of any problematic DOIs.
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].