{"id":392080,"date":"2026-04-14T19:50:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T19:50:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/392080\/"},"modified":"2026-04-14T19:50:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T19:50:08","slug":"bmj-retracts-most-of-a-special-issue-for-compromised-peer-review-and-improbable-device-use-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/392080\/","title":{"rendered":"BMJ retracts most of a special issue for \u2018compromised\u2019 peer review and \u2018improbable device use\u2019 \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

BMJ\u2019s Journal of Medical Genetics has retracted the bulk of a seven-year-old special issue for an \u201cirreparably compromised\u201d review process and \u201cimprobable device use.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Of the eight papers in the 2019 special issue<\/a>, seven were retracted, including an editorial<\/a> that \u201calmost exclusively\u201d referred to the other now-retracted papers, according to a statement from the journal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to the retraction notice<\/a> published today, the journal\u2019s investigation found the guest editor for the issue selected the peer reviewers, the majority of whom were affiliated with Nanjing University in China. The guest editor is not named in the issue. The publisher\u2019s investigation also found evidence of compromised peer review in almost all articles, the notice states.<\/p>\n

The articles were submitted in response to a call for papers for \u201cGenomic aspects of cancer immunotherapy: Challenges and clinical implications.\u201d Two of the papers in the special issue were on methods in cancer immunotherapy, five on immunogenetics, and one on functional genomics. Collectively, the eight retracted articles have been cited nearly 350 times, according to Clarivate\u2019s Web of Science.<\/p>\n

The retraction notice also refers to \u201cevidence of improbable device use in many articles\u201d as a second motivator for the bulk retraction. Caroline White, media relations manager at the BMJ Group, told us this refers to the \u201ctype of issue that arises when the same device is used by two people who are supposed to be entirely independent of each other.\u201d White declined to explain exactly what this means, citing legal concerns.<\/p>\n

White also said the problems came to light via \u201ctools that highlight potential problems in published articles,\u201d noting the tools \u201conly became available in the past 2-3 years.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked for the name of the guest editor, she told us it was the publisher\u2019s policy \u201cnot to go into specific details of retraction cases.\u201d<\/p>\n

The retractions were scheduled to be published at 6:30 p.m. ET today and were included in an embargoed notice for journalists. But they were published early in what White told us was a \u201cmistake made by the technical team.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

None of the corresponding authors immediately responded to our request for comment. All of the authors on the retracted papers listed affiliations with institutions in China, including Nanjing University, and several co-authored more than one article.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The only article in the special issue that was not retracted was a breast cancer case report<\/a> by researchers at Harvard Medical School in Boston.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Huw Dorkins, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Genetics, said in a statement: \u201cThis topic collection was really out of scope for the journal, and accepted under a different editorial regime, when different processes applied. We have since reviewed our policies and improved our practice around topic collections.\u201d<\/p>\n

Guest-edited special issues appear to be particularly vulnerable<\/a> to paper mills. Amid its retraction of more than 10,000 papers between late 2022 and early 2024, Hindawi temporarily suspended<\/a> publishing special issues in 2023 because of \u201ccompromised articles.\u201d In 2024, a Springer Nature journal retracted 34 papers<\/a> from special issues for \u201ccompromised editorial handling and peer review process.\u201d The same year, Annals of Operations Research retracted an entire special issue<\/a> over concerns about \u201ccompromised\u201d peer review.<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tProcessing\u2026\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tSuccess! You’re on the list.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\tWhoops! There was an error and we couldn’t process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t