International Wound Journal, a Wiley title, has retracted 27 papers since June with notices mentioning “manipulated” or “compromised” peer review.
“A comprehensive investigation examining manipulated peer review in this journal is in progress,” a Wiley spokesperson told Retraction Watch. The publisher anticipates retracting more articles as the investigation continues.
The first retraction of the batch, of the November 2023 article “Analysis of the Association Between Serum Levels of 25(OH)D, Retinol Binding Protein, and Cyclooxygenase-2 and the Disease Severity in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers,” appeared June 14. The notice stated Wiley and the journal’s editor in chief “concluded that the peer review process of this article was manipulated” following an investigation by the publisher.
The authors “did not respond to the notice of retraction,” according to the notice. Corresponding author Liwei Bai of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University in Weihui, China, did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Although the Wiley spokesperson told us the publisher’s investigation began “through our standard processes and channels prior to the receipt of inquiries from external parties,” 20 of the retractions in the batch credited “a third party.” These notices stated:
It came to the publisher’s attention from a third party that a number of articles shared concerning similarities in format and structure. Following an investigation by the publisher, the retraction has been agreed on as the peer review and publishing process for this article were found to be manipulated
Five papers pulled November 12 have different notices, which stated the articles were accepted “solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process,” and therefore must be retracted.
International Wound Journal recently became open access, according to a September 2023 editorial marking the journal’s 20th birthday. The journal had increased its number of editions from eight to 10 in 2023, and would add two more in 2024, the editors wrote, “as our submission volumes have increased exponentially.” The editors also shared plans to publish “several ‘special’ editions to supplement our annual editions.”
In an August editorial, the editors acknowledged some of the increase in submissions the journal had seen “is related to ‘papermill’ type activity.” They continued:
This has challenged our submission and review process. To manage this, we are implementing significant back-end processes to identify and reject such content. We are also creating the largest single editorial board for any wound care journal, to strengthen our review process to enhance its effectiveness. This has become necessary to ensure the continued quality of our journal, especially considering the threat that “papermill type” activity may have on our overall subject area. This is a global challenge to the world of academic and clinical research. It is something that the IWJ does not take lightly and we are working diligently in playing our part to minimize its impact in the world of wound care.
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].
From their only recently going open access, this seems a historical Wiley title rather than one of those they acquired with Hindawi? Probably worth making explicit, given the very large number of retractions on that other side and now that Wiley’s dropping the Hindawi imprint makes the distinction less immediately obvious.
I just call them Windawi at this point; I think the question of who has eaten whom is moot. Something similar happened to Boeing.