An agriculture researcher has lost nine papers from Elsevier journals for “illegitimate reviewer reports.”
The researcher, Christos Damalas, is, well, irked.
The journals included Chemosphere, Crop Protection, Land Use Policy, and Science of the Total Environment, and the papers were all published in 2017 and 2018, with Damalas as corresponding author and co-authors from Iran and Pakistan. Together, the nine papers have been cited about 75 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Knowledge.
Here’s a typical notice, this one from Crop Protection:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Chair Editor.
After a thorough investigation, the Editor has concluded that the acceptance of this article was based upon the positive advice of two illegitimate reviewer reports. The reports were submitted from email accounts which were provided by the corresponding author as suggested reviewers during the submission of the article. Although purportedly real reviewer accounts, the Editor has concluded that these were not of appropriate, independent reviewers.
This manipulation of the peer-review process represents a clear violation of the fundamentals of peer review, our publishing policies, and publishing ethics standards. Apologies are offered to the reviewers whose identity was assumed and to the readers of the journal that this deception was not detected during the submission process.
An Elsevier spokesperson told us that
an Editor of Crop Protection became suspicious of the four reviewer accounts suggested by this author for a submission (all four, non-institutional email addresses), as the Editor knew the scientists purportedly suggested as reviewers.
The Editor flagged this to the other Editors and to the journal Publisher. Then Elsevier investigated all papers by this author, leading to these retractions.
‘Absolutely unjust’
Damalas was not happy with that outcome. He forwarded us a letter he sent Elsevier:
I am writing this letter to you to officially appeal against decision to retract our published articles below, to which I am designated as a corresponding author:
…
We think that the decision for retraction was absolutely unjust for our published articles for the following reasons:
1) Our articles in question do not violate any guideline of COPE for article retraction, namely, i) there is no evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), ii) none of the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or
justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication), iii) none of the publications have any indication of plagiarism, and iv) none of the publications reports unethical research.
2) Our articles in question were assessed by a number of reviewers, who all agreed in on the scientific merit of the articles. Literally, all reviewers agreed, indicating the high quality of our articles. This is also supported by the high number of citations that our articles have gained in the literature so far and they continue to have impact.
3) Evaluation of the appropriateness of the suggested reviewers with submission is not a responsibility of the authors.
4) Selection of the reviewers is not a responsibility of the authors.
Based on the above, I kindly request to cancel the retraction decision about the above articles and give the opportunity to the scientific community to evaluate their merit with time.
On a personal basis, it will be really unfair for me, who I have helped numerous authors to publish their research, if you do not cancel your decision for the retractions.
Kindly consider my appeal and do the needful actions.
If, despite our explanations, there is still any doubt about the overall merit of the above articles, we are ready to accept re-evaluation of the papers any time by any editor and by any reviewer.
We asked Damalas to respond directly to the allegations in the retraction notice that the peer review reports were illegitimate. He said:
I do not know anything about the reviewers and the review process.
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].
“rom” -> “from”
Fixed, thanks.
What’s the rest of this story? Suggesting soft, friendly reviewers is not a retractable offense – that’s on the editors. Suggesting a sock puppet reviewer, with an email that looks to be to Dr. Authoritative but is really back to the author or a confederate, very much is cause for retraction and blacklisting. Which is it?
From the article, it very much looks like puppet reviewers, since the initial thread of the story is that an editor knew the suggested reviewers and noticed that their suggested e-mails did not match.
Right. The most probable is that the editor contacted by phone or by email the reviewer(s) he knew, clearing up all doubts.
“Our articles in question were assessed by a number of reviewers, who all agreed in on the scientific merit of the articles. Literally, all reviewers agreed…”
That, right there, is the most implausible thing of all. Not one critical review for all 9 papers?
So, in 9 out of 9 cases, editors blindly went for the referees suggested by the author. Ok, so, shame on the author for the fake reviews, but it seems to me editors could have been less shallow.
There is this problem with peer review as it is: often, there is no incentives for associate editors to take critically the reviewers’ advices.