IOP Publishing has retracted nearly 100 papers from three of its conference proceedings after the articles were flagged for containing tortured phrases.
Tortured phrases are rephrasings and synonyms — often awkward and nonsensical — substituted in text to evade plagiarism detectors. For example, one of the retracted papers described “savvy lattices” and “shrewd homes” instead of “smart grids” and “smart homes.” Tortured phrases pre-date AI technology.
The recent batch includes 29 retractions from Journal of Physics: Conference Series; eight from Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; and 43 from Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
According to the retraction notices, dated August 27, IOPP’s investigation followed flags from the Problematic Paper Screener and found the articles contain “a number of nonsensical phrases that feature throughout the paper to the extent that the article makes very little sense,” each of the notices states.
A 2021 paper in Materials Science and Engineering on detecting brain tumors retracted as part of the efforts used the term “cerebral torment” in place of headache. Another from the same year published in Journal of Physics used “armada the board” in place of fleet management.
In some cases, the notices state the authors “neither agree nor disagree with the retraction,” whereas others say the publisher “would welcome receiving the authors’ version of events.”
B Swapna and Kamalahasan Murugan of Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute in Chennai, India, are coauthors on three of the retracted papers from Materials Science and Engineering, the most for any authors in the batch. Neither responded to our request for comment.
To date, IOPP has retracted upward of 1,000 papers for tortured phrases, said Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse in France and one of the creators of the Problematic Paper Screener.
Rachael Harper, head of marketing communications at IOPP, which is owned by the Institute of Physics, told us in the time since the papers were published, the publisher has “strengthened our editorial and peer review processes for our conference proceedings programme, investing in enhanced submission and monitoring technology, expanding the specialist team responsible for overseeing conference proceedings, and strengthening our Research Integrity team.”
The Problematic Paper Screener has flagged other papers from the same journals that have yet to be retracted, including one that uses the phrase “flag to clamor” instead of the established phrase “signal to noise” and another that used “brilliant gadget” rather than “smart device.” A 2020 paper on machine learning algorithms from Materials Science Engineering, which has been cited 11 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, uses the phrase “Nearest Buddies” in place of (k-)nearest neighbors.
Harper did not respond to a question about whether the publisher planned to retract more papers flagged for tortured phrases. Cabanac told us another representative from IOPP “acknowledged that there is more on the [Problematic Paper Screener], and that they’re working on it.”
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].
I think OA publishers should not mind about retracting nonsensical papers. After retracting, the publishers should not return the paid APC. Instead, use it to give full-waiver for the publication from authors who do not have any funding (from anywhere in the world).
Why were those papers accepted in the first place, when any half-awake editor should have desk-rejected them??