Bioengineered has lost its spot in Clarivate’s Web of Science index, as of its April update. The journal has been working to overcome a flood of paper mill activity, but sleuths have questioned why hundreds of papers with potentially manipulated images have still not been retracted.
A spokesperson for Taylor & Francis, which publishes the journal, said it has taken action against the paper mill; the journal has retracted 86 papers since January 2022. They are “disappointed” at the delisting decision, the spokesperson said. The journal now faces up to a two-year embargo before it can rejoin the citation index.
Bioengineered publishes bioengineering and biotechnology research. In 2021, journal editors launched an investigation when submissions spiked and several authors of submitted and accepted articles asked for authorship changes – both hallmarks of paper mill activity.
The probe looked at hundreds of papers and put in place several measures to strengthen editorial processes, such as asking authors to submit raw data, enhanced vetting of peer reviewers and editor training, according to a June 2023 post about the incident on the publisher’s blog.
But in late March, a group of sleuths led by Rene Aquarius, a neurosurgery researcher at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, posted a preprint at arXiv.org that found hundreds of papers with questionable images remain unmarked. The analysis suggested actions taken by the publisher “appear to have stemmed the tide of new paper mill submission, but a backlog of contaminated articles remains in the literature,” the authors wrote.
In its latest update, released April 21, Clarivate delisted Bioengineered because it no longer met “one or more of our 24 quality criteria,” a Clarivate spokesperson said by email. They declined to give more detail about which quality criteria.
Taylor & Francis is still “actively investigating a large number of articles published in Bioengineered that are suspected to be the product of paper mill activity,” the publisher’s spokesperson said. In addition to the retracted articles, hundreds more are currently marked as “under investigation,” they said, adding:
Alongside this activity, with the support of the Editor and Board, we have made a range of editorial and process changes to the journal which, as acknowledged by the sleuths, have allowed us to proactively detect and prevent the publication of a sizeable amount of further paper mill content.
Twelve of the retraction notices in the latest issue state: “Since publication, significant concerns have been raised about the integrity of the data and reported results in the article.” And 11 of those add: “When approached for an explanation, the authors did not provide their original data or any necessary supporting information.”
Bioengineered was notified a year ago that it could be delisted. Typically journals spend around six weeks “on hold” before a delisting decision. But this timeline can be extended depending on the nature and complexity of the case and the extent to which publishers engage with the process.
“In cases in which publishers engage with us as per our policy, we will consider allowing a journal to remain on hold for longer to allow time for publishers to conduct their own investigations and take corrective action should they decide to do so,” the Clarivate spokesperson said. Clarivate expects “these actions to be completed within 12 months.”
Although the sleuths found issues in their analysis, Aquarius said he finds it “strange” the journal “apparently didn’t do a good enough job to be listed again” despite having been given a year to take action against the paper mill. “What did they miss?” he said.
Clarivate’s policy means Bioengineered has to wait two years before it can be resubmitted to Web of Science, the Clarivate spokesperson said. But Clarivate may consider reducing the embargo period for “responsible publishers who proactively investigate breaches in research integrity and correct the scholarly record in a timely and transparent manner.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].