Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Do you understand now how commercial, bogus and fake is the ISI Indexing System itself? One more example of the Fake and Commercial ISI Index. ISI Indexes the Fake Publisher BIOMED CENTRAL. BIOMED CENTRAL discovered 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

One more example of the Fake and Commercial ISI Index. ISI Indexes the Fake Publisher BIOMED CENTRAL.

BIOMED CENTRAL charges 1000-1800 USD per paper (from them a commission-kickback goes to ISI Thomson to index them)
They have fake review.
BIOMED CENTRAL discovered 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

BioMed Central has uncovered about fifty manuscripts in their editorial system that involved fake peer reviewers. BIOMED Central is a bogus publisher that pays a lot of money to ISI (Thomson) Fake index to publish its nonsense and garbage papers.

Most of the cases were not published because they were discovered by a manuscript editor on a final pre-publication check. The five or so that have been published will go through some sort of re-review, which may result in expressions of concern or retraction.

The narrative seems similar to that in the growing number of cases of peer review manipulation we’ve seen recently. What tipped off the editor was minor spelling mistakes in the reviewers’ names, and odd non-institutional email addresses that were often changed once reviews had been submitted, in an apparent attempt to cover the fakers’ tracks. Those “reviewers” had turned in reports across several journals, spanning several subjects.

It would seem that a third party, perhaps marketing services helping authors have papers accepted, was involved.

The publisher has let all of its external editors in chief know about the situation. To prevent it from happening again, authors will not be able to recommend reviewers for their papers. Here’s a message from BioMed Central senior managing editor Diana Marshall that went out to a number of journal editors earlier today:

We need to inform you of a situation that has come to light on several journals involving potentially fake peer reviewers.

When completing final editorial checks on a manuscript an in-house Editor spotted irregularities in reviewer reports from author-suggested reviewers. Further investigation suggests that the reviewers have been fabricated. By searching systematically across our systems we have uncovered a number of cases of these potentially fake peer reviewers returning reports across several journals including a number in the BMC series.

There doesn’t seem to be an obvious link between the authors as they are different in each case. We are concerned that a third party is involved, possibly supplying the names of fake reviewers to authors to influence the peer review process. While we investigate further we will temporarily switch off the functionality which allows authors to suggest potential peer reviewers directly into our workflows. This change will come into effect in the next few days.

We appreciate this may cause concern but given the level of sophisticated fraud that appears to be taking place we hope you will understand.

We will be in touch with individual Editors if manuscripts you have handled have been directly affected and if your attention is required for individual cases.

In completing our checks and balances on a manuscript, one of our in-house editors spotted problems in reports from author-suggested reviewers. Since this was flagged, we have searched our systems and found several potential false reviewer accounts that seem to have returned peer review reports to several of our journals. At present this amounts to around 50 manuscripts, the majority of which have not been published and are held in our systems.

We cannot see a clear link between the authors and believe that a third party may be involved, and influencing the peer review process.

At this stage we are investigating further and the manuscripts are on hold. We have informed our staff and external editors and are switching off the functionality that allows authors to suggest potential peer reviewers directly into our systems while we look into the issue in more depth.

Journals have retracted more than 100 papers in the past two years for fake peer reviews, many of which were written by the authors themselves.

Update, 2 p.m. Eastern, 11/25/14: Based on additional information, clarified headline and first line of post to reflect that most of the 50 manuscripts were somewhere in the editorial process, not accepted. BioMed Central also tells us that in many cases, editors did not use the author-suggested reviewers, but nevertheless held the manuscript after noticing the irregularities.

Source: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/25/publisher-discovers-50-papers-accepted-based-on-fake-peer-reviews/

Do you understand now how commercial, bogus and fake is the ISI Indexing System itself?

1 comment:

  1. Congratulations. You did a great job. Your site is really objective. I think that you must include in your black list the fake conferences
    of BIT Life Sciences
    Check them:
    http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2013/02/more_fake-scientific-conferenc.html

    and

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIT_Life_Sciences

    More fake-scientific-conference spam from BIT Life Sciences

    Would you pay to go to a fake "scientific conference" in China where speakers were invited at random? What if the scientists they list as speakers hadn't actually agreed to speak? That seems to be the business model of BIT Life Sciences. For example, "Knut Buttnase" got invited to chair a session based on an abstract and CV that were obviously fake.

    They're getting more sophisticated, though. They're still inviting me to speak on topics I know nothing about -- "Fungal Bioenergy", most recently -- but their software now inserts the title of a recent paper into the email.
    "Since we have learnt that you are making valuable contributions to INSERT TITLE HERE, your unique inspirational message will be the perfect way to kick off the congress."
    I guess the idea is that, if 5% of the people they email have some connection to the conference topic, some of those people will be fooled into signing up. But that might not work, for people who have already received lots of spam from them. Also, anyone who Googles "BIT Life Sciences" would hesitate to send them money. So I predict that their next move will be to change their name.

    ReplyDelete