Addressing Reviewer Misconduct in Scholarly Publishing: MDPI's Proactive Steps

In a bid to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, MDPI, a renowned open-access publisher in the scholarly world, has recently uncovered and is actively investigating a significant issue within its peer-review process, identified as a 'reviewer mill', affecting the integrity of 84 published papers across 23 journals. The incident was brought to light by a volunteer-led investigation posted online by Predatory Reports - an organization that aims to highlight unethical publishing practices.

Professor Maria de las Angeles Oviedo Garcia of the University of Seville, Spain, conducted the investigation. She began the work after reading a dubious review report that was published with an article in MDPI's Journal of Clinical Medicine. The report gave two digital object identifiers (DOIs) for works that the reviewer had co-authored, after stating that the authors "should cite recently published articles such as."

This situation involves the misuse of peer-review reports, primarily through the submission of templated reports and the manipulation of citations to include irrelevant or self-cited references. Despite the severity of the problem, MDPI's research has identified ten reviewers who are responsible for these inconsistencies; no evidence of misbehavior by guest editors or author-reviewer collaboration has been found. Interestingly, MDPI has taken corrective action, reaching out to affected individuals, contacting implicated reviewers, working with academic institutions, and going through a thorough review and correction procedure for affected papers, to name a few.

Key Findings:

• Extent of the Issue: The misconduct encompasses the use of templated reports and unethical citation practices across 84 papers, with 70 articles recommended to include 2-4 potentially unrelated or self-cited references.
• Reviewer Misconduct: Ten reviewers have been implicated in these practices, engaging in what appears to be a citation cartel without any particular focus on special issues or evidence of author-reviewer collusion.
• Guest Editor Conduct: Investigations have so far cleared guest editors of any wrongdoing related to this issue.

MDPI's Response:

In response to these findings, an MDPI representative informed Chemistry World that the company was aware of the circumstance and was looking into it. "It is important to acknowledge that these kinds of inquiries do necessitate a certain duration; however, we are ready to offer updates as soon as our investigation is finished," they continued. MDPI has initiated several corrective measures aimed at upholding the integrity of its publication process. These steps include:

• Reviewers: Contacting the implicated reviewers for explanations and identity confirmations.
• Affected Parties: Informing authors and academic editors of the affected articles, with plans to initiate post-publication peer review for 30 papers.
• Institutional Coordination: Working with academic institutions to address and rectify the behaviors of the implicated reviewers.
• Citation Evaluation: Undertaking a thorough review and correction process for the 47 articles identified with irrelevant citations.
• Collaborative Revisions: Engaging with authors and academic editors to facilitate necessary revisions and corrections.

MDPI is committed to maintaining transparency and integrity in its scholarly publications and will continue to update the academic community as the investigation progresses. The publisher appreciates the understanding and cooperation of all parties involved as it takes steps to correct these issues and prevent future occurrences.

Keywords

academic integrity Citation Corrective Measures Peer Review Process Post-Publication Peer Review Reviewer Misconduct Self-Cited References Templated Reports

Comments

---

Ogbuka Josiah Chukwuemeka

16 March, 2024

I have gone through this piece. Unfortunately, this is my first time to encounter such an act of academic irresponsibility. However, I am somewhat delighted with the steps taken by MDPI to forestall a reoccurrence.

My suggestion is that a reviewer's code of conduct should be clearly stated and each reviewer should agree with the terms and conditions. This will enable the Editor or independent investigation team to take appropriate action whenever a case of misconduct is established.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Dr. Saad Tayyab

16 March, 2024

This is not a new item to look into. It has long been practiced in many journals with respectable impact factors. The genesis of this corruption starts with the World University rankings. Many university-ranking organizations use one of the criteria as a citation. Considering this criterion, university management put pressure on its faculty staff to get more citations for their publications. Being forced to increase their citations, the faculty of these organizations, being reviewers of many journals insists the authors on including their publications in their submitted manuscripts. The authors of these manuscripts feel bound to satisfy the reviewers in order to get their manuscripts accepted for publication in these journals. The editors of these journals often overlook these issues. Therefore, it looks like a chain reaction where the authors of the manuscripts, reviewers, editors, university management, and university ranking companies are interlinked. To overcome these hurdles, the editors of the journals should look into these comments if the reviewer is asking to include some current or relevant references in their manuscript. In my view, the editors' responsibility for checking this point may be an antidote for such poisons, which are maligning scientific spirits.

Prof. Tamer I. Abdel-Wahab

17 March, 2024

1. Conflict of Interest is a critical issue in research and academia. Authors need to understand and address Conflict of Interest to maintain ethical standards. Conflict of Interest can arise when researchers' personal, financial, or professional interests influence their objectivity in conducting and reporting research. Managing conflicts effectively is crucial to upholding scientific integrity. Conflict of Interest can be financial, non-financial, or intellectual, affecting researchers' objectivity. Financial Conflict of Interest involves ties with entities that have a stake in the research outcome, while non-financial Conflict of Interest stems from personal or professional relationships. Intellectual conflicts may bias researchers' approach and interpretation of results.

2. Editors at journals and publishing houses play a crucial role in maintaining transparency and integrity in scientific writing. Editorial oversight involves monitoring and addressing conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and board members to uphold ethical conduct and transparency.

3. Researchers and writers must adhere to ethical standards and disclose any conflicts of interest to maintain the credibility of their work and uphold scholarly publishing standards, fostering trust in the scientific community.

Francisco Bulnes

17 March, 2024

The review process must be transparent and very clear, full of objectivity, and is an activity of big and great responsibility.
Really, the review process is an extremely important serious step of the publication process, because is being evaluates the veracity, scientific quality, knowledge innovation, increasing knowledge, and legacy of this, to later generations. The review process must be totally blind and impartial.

Dr. Abdelazim Negm

03 April, 2024

Thank you so much for the information.

It is interesting to know that MSPI's people started to take corrective measures.

Dr. Abdelazim Negm

03 April, 2024

Thank you so much for the information.

It is interesting to know that MSPI's people started to take corrective measures.

Leave a Comment

---

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Comment