BMJ’s Journal of Medical Genetics retracted nearly all the papers published in a 2019 guest-edited issue after an investigation revealed the papers were “irreparably compromised.”
In all, seven of eight papers and one editorial were retracted. The journal’s investigation found that the peer review process was compromised in almost all articles and that the guest editors selected the peer reviewers, the retraction notice stated. The editorial, which described the collection, was retracted because it almost exclusively referred to the retracted papers.
The retractions were embargoed until 6:30 pm ET Tuesday, but the journal published them early.
Many of the articles had evidence of “improbable device use,” which Caroline White, media relations manager for BMJ Group, told MedPage Today is “when the same device is used by two people who are supposed to be entirely independent of each other.”
Most of the reviewers and guest editors were affiliated with Nanjing University and Nanjing University Hospital in China, which will be alerted to the reasons for retraction, according to the notice.
The research was originally submitted in response to a call for papers and then published as part of a topic collection entitled “Genomic aspects of cancer immunotherapy: Challenges and clinical implications.” The retracted papers have been cited nearly 350 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, Retraction Watch reported.
Only one paper in the collection, a breast cancer case report, was not retracted. This paper had no evidence that the review was compromised and an external review by a subject matter expert confirmed the paper is sound, the notice stated.
“This topic collection was really out of scope for the journal, and accepted under a different editorial regime, when different processes applied,” Huw Dorkins, BMBCh, the current editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Genetics, said in a statement. “We have since reviewed our policies and improved our practice around topic collections.”
Because the collection was judged by Dorkins to be out of scope for the journal, it will not be re-reviewed for publication, according to the notice. The retracted papers cover cancer immunotherapy while the journal’s focus is on human genetics.
White would not answer specific questions about what prompted the investigation or when the flaws in the retracted research were first identified, saying it’s BMJ Group’s policy “not to provide specific details of retraction cases beyond what is stated in the retraction notice itself.”
She did say that the issues “came to light through tools that highlight potential problems in published articles” and that these tools “have only become available in the past 2-3 years.”
“Retractions take some time to effect as due process must be followed, and this can be lengthy, especially when so many articles are involved,” White said.
Ivan Oransky, MD, editor-in-chief of The Transmitter and co-founder of Retraction Watch, told MedPage Today he’s skeptical of this answer.
“That kind of acknowledgement is not the flex that they think it is, because what it actually is saying is ‘we weren’t doing any real quality assurance before these tools came along,'” Oransky said.
While there certainly are more tools for identifying problems with research, critical thinking and editorial oversight were around in 2019. The fact that the topic was outside the journal’s scope should have been a red flag, as well the fact that so many of the authors and reviewers were from one institution, Oransky noted.
It’s not known if the Journal of Medical Genetics special issue was compromised by individual actors or nefarious paper mill operations that falsify the scientific record. However, guest-edited journal editions are particularly vulnerable to being compromised since they veer from the established editorial process, Oransky explained, and many journals have been aware of these risks for years. He has suggested that journals pump the brakes on special issues, to which journals have responded that authors love these editions.
“I mean, bank robbers love it when you put them in the bank as a security guard, but I don’t think that’s a good idea,” Oransky said. “I don’t think this is purely hindsight.”
Source: Read Full Article
