M.A. Oviedo-Garcia et al/medRxiv 2025
A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific record and patient safety,” a team of researchers report. Without more transparency by journals, they say, most review mills will remain impossible to detect.
In a preprint posted on medRxiv on October 23, sleuths Dorothy Bishop, René Aquarius and Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García say they discovered the alleged review mill when they stumbled upon seemingly “boilerplate” comments in a peer review. This discovery led the trio to search for published peer reviews that shared similar terminology — work that ultimately identified 195 suspect reviews of 170 articles published between Feb. 6, 2019, and July 7, 2025. The researchers speculate the number of articles affected is likely higher given most journals do not publish their peer reviews.
The alleged mill is run by “well-established, Italian physicians in the fields of gynecology and oncology,” wrote the authors of the new study, which also noted the reviewers were refereeing papers with clinical implications, a pattern the authors called “alarming.”
The hallmarks of a review mill are a “pattern of generic, vague, and repeated affirmations” in reviewer reports and the frequent use of “coercive citations” to push authors to cite the work of mill members, as Oviedo-García articulated in a paper last year.
Of the 195 reviews the authors identified in the new study, 186 by apparent members of the mill suggested citing “at least one article which was co-authored by the reviewer or another member of the mill,” according to the preprint.
The preprint authors noted when they found a review containing a boilerplate comment, it “invariably” contained other text common across reviews, indicating “a level of co-ordination between reviewers.”
Authors of 142 of the 170 identified papers included coercive citations recommended by the reviewers, suggesting the approach was highly effective in aiding the reviewers’ h-indices, Bishop’s group found. For 59 other papers reviewed as a control group, only four reviews recommended adding citations to the reviewers’ own work.
Bishop, professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University, told us the reviewers her team identified “frequently publish together and during their careers they work or have worked together in the same institutions.” The research group decided not to name the reviewers in their preprint because journal editors can be “squeamish” about “naming and shaming,” she told us, which could affect the likelihood the preprint is published.
But the supplementary materials do name 14 of the reviewers involved in the alleged mill.
One is Giorgio Bogani of Sapienza University in Rome, who completed 24 of the suspect reviews and holds an editorial board position at Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology. Antonio Simone Laganà (Reviewer 9 in the preprint) of the University of Palermo, who completed five of the suspect reviews, won several awards for peer review in 2019, including top reviewer in biology and biochemistry and clinical medicine, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. He currently serves on the editorial board of at least 18 journals, according to the preprint authors.
Several of the named reviewers, including Laganà, had a paper retracted from the European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology in August 2024 after sleuth Ben Mol flagged similarities with another paper on PubPeer. The second paper, published in Climacteric, shares several of the same authors.
Mol, who leads the Evidence-based Women’s Health Care Research Group in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash University in Australia, has worked to raise awareness of problematic data informing medical recommendations for women’s health care, and to cleanse the literature of unreliable studies. (Mol had a paper retracted recently for duplication.)
Reviews by the alleged review mill were in journals from several publishers, including MDPI, PLOS, BioMed Central and BMJ.
Journals with editors who are part of a review mill make easier targets, because they can give other reviewers in their network easier access to papers, Bishop told us. That, she said, was the case for 20 of the papers identified as being of concern. Bishop also said “there are likely to be many other journals involved, but we don’t know about them because they don’t have open peer review.”
Bishop noted “this is a (rare) case where we don’t think the publishers can be blamed, because the review mills are under the radar. Also, it would be a shame if these journals were lambasted for having review mills when they are actually doing the right thing by making peer review open – and having names of handling editors and/or reviewers published is also very useful.”
The preprint authors contacted PLOS One — home to 36 of the papers of concern — with the results, Bishop said. “They are aware of the problem and confirmed that one of these reviewers who served as editor was removed prior to our analysis,” she said. Reviewers identified as numbers 7 and 9 (Andrea Giannini of Sapienza University in Rome and Laganà, respectively) have been editors of PLOS One.
None of the authors of the implicated papers seemed to be involved in the alleged network, Bishop said, speculating the goal was to increase the reviewers’ citation counts.
How to approach affected papers is still a question Bishop and her team have for the scientific community.
“Should they get a separate status or should they be retracted? Should they get a second chance by inviting new peer-reviewers to do additional post-publication peer-review?”
Regardless, the preprint authors “recommend that publishers adopt open peer review, employ automated checks, and transparently report the editors responsible for handling papers, to make detection of review mills easier for the entire scientific community.”
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].