British Medical Journal group retracts guest-edited Journal of Medical Genetics special edition
Updated
Updated · STAT · Apr 24
British Medical Journal group retracts guest-edited Journal of Medical Genetics special edition
4 articles · Updated · STAT · Apr 24
The retraction affects nearly the entire special issue on cancer immunotherapies due to compromised peer review in almost all articles.
This move highlights growing concerns about the integrity of guest-edited journal issues, which critics say are vulnerable due to reduced peer review and financial incentives.
Special issues now account for a significant share of published articles at major publishers, prompting calls from funders and lawmakers to reform scientific publishing practices and prioritize research quality.
Has the 'publish or perish' culture created a scientific integrity crisis that is now irreversible?
Does paying to publish your research create a system where wealth matters more than scientific quality?
Could non-profit 'Diamond Open Access' publishing finally break the grip of commercial academic journals?
As funders abandon journals for preprints, is this the end of traditional peer review as we know it?
How much has fabricated research, like the debunked Alzheimer's theory, cost taxpayers and misdirected science?
Are we entering a new arms race between AI fraud detectors and sophisticated 'paper mills'?
Seven Papers Retracted in 2024 BMJ Special Issue Reveal Peer Review Fraud and Editorial Oversight Collapse
Overview
In 2024, the BMJ Group retracted seven research articles and one editorial from a 2019 special issue of the Journal of Medical Genetics due to irreparably compromised peer review. This compromise was caused by a guest editor who selected reviewers mainly from a single institution, leading to suspicious patterns of device use that indicated fake or collusive reviews. The issue was accepted under outdated editorial oversight, allowing these failures. Advanced AI tools, deployed years later, uncovered the fraud and triggered the retractions. This case highlights systemic vulnerabilities in guest-edited special issues, driven by the open-access APC model that incentivizes volume over quality, fueling widespread misconduct and prompting industry-wide reforms to strengthen oversight and peer review integrity.