Major Investigation: Frontiers to Retract 122 Articles, Exposing Links to Unethical Publishing Practices Across Thousands of Journals

Frontiers, a well-known publisher, is retracting 122 articles from five different journals. This decision comes after an investigation revealed serious unethical practices among a group of authors and editors. They were caught manipulating citations and failing to disclose conflicts of interest in their peer review process.

The investigation has revealed a much larger network, with over 4,000 articles linked to this group, affecting journals from multiple publishing companies. Frontiers stated that they are open to sharing their investigative methods with other publishers to help improve research integrity across the board.

This isn’t the first time Frontiers has faced this issue. In 2023 alone, they retracted 40 articles, with additional withdrawals the previous year. The latest batch of retractions started appearing on July 28, and according to our count, at least 25 articles were pulled on that day. Notifications for these retractions mention that the peer review integrity has been compromised, leading to doubts about the validity of the findings in those articles.

The investigation began after a reader raised concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest in one paper. A user on PubPeer, known as “Desmococcus antarctica,” highlighted instances where authors were also reviewers of the same articles. This led the research integrity team to examine the authors’ history closely, uncovering a sophisticated network of around 35 individuals involved in potentially unethical practices across various journals.

With the rise in publishing misconduct, many companies are facing significant challenges. The publishing landscape is evolving, and experts believe that enhanced oversight and technology, like Frontiers’ AI review system, can help improve the situation. The AI system now includes checks for conflicts of interest among reviewers and editors, aiming to restore trust in the peer review process.

For instance, one article that has caught attention discusses how households perceive and adopt environmentally friendly technology. The reviewer for this paper had coauthored work with an author, raising red flags about bias. Scholars, like Muhammad Mohsin from Jiangsu University, have responsibilities that might conflict with the impartiality needed in the review process.

This situation reflects a growing concern in the academic world over the integrity of published research. A recent study found that 70% of researchers believe misconduct is becoming more prevalent. With billions of dollars invested in research globally, maintaining the credibility of published articles is crucial for the advancement of science.

As Frontiers navigates these challenges, it highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in academic publishing. This incident serves as a wake-up call for the entire research community to prioritize ethical practices in all aspects of scientific inquiry.

For more details on these issues and to see ongoing discussions, you can visit sources like [Retraction Watch](http://retractionwatch.com), which tracks mentioned retractions and provides insights into ongoing matters in the scholarly publishing community.

Source link