Most retractions of scientific papers occur when the research presented proves to be inaccurate, impossible to replicate or plagiarized. A scientist in Taiwan, however, just had 60 papers linked to his work retracted from a journal because he fraudulently got them published.
The researcher made fake online accounts and wrote positive reviews of his work. Chen-Yuan Chen's "peer-review and citation ring" also consisted of real scientists whose identities he stole, and other reviewers all linked to his work.
The Journal of Vibration and Control, from which Chen's papers were retracted, is published by Sage Publications. The company said every paper had at least one author or reviewer in Chen's ring. They don't yet know if other scientists were involved, but they do not rule out the possibility.
"While investigating the JVC papers submitted and reviewed by Peter Chen, it was discovered that the author had created various aliases on SAGE Track, providing different email addresses to set up more than one account. Consequently, SAGE scrutinized further the coauthors of and reviewers selected for Peter Chen's papers, these names appeared to form part of a peer review ring," said Sage Publications in a statement about the situation. The ring, it seemed, centered around Chen.
Chen was a computer science professor at the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE). The university reported that his current whereabouts are unknown. They are investigating into whether or not other professors were in on the fraud.
The journal publishes papers on signal analysis and noise control. Its publisher and its former editor Ali F. Nayfeh sensed something was wrong last year, so they contacted NPUE; they were never able to directly contact Chen. Nayfeh resigned shortly after he became suspicious of the situation.
The process of peer-review is a hallmark of scientific research publication. It allows for papers to undergo objective judgment by other researchers, in the name of dispassionate, accurate science. Sage Publications' peer-review process is online, which was not previously considered reason for concern. But it seems the online platform may have made Chen's fraudulent activities more possible.
According to Michael B. Eisen of the University of California, Berkeley, peer review in some countries focuses more on quantity rather than quality.
"That creates room for various forms of shenanigans," he said. "It doesn't surprise me that much that something like this happens."
When Sage Publications contacted Chen about the investigation into his role in the ring, he provided an "unsatisfactory response" and resigned from his position. The publishing company is now addressing the peer-review the situation and said it will need to take measures to reduce the journal's vulnerability.
