Interim Report on Potential Misconduct by Reviewers Involving 84 Papers

MDPI is actively addressing and investigating an issue related to a 'reviewer mill' that has recently come to our attention. This investigation centers on potential misconduct in peer-review reports, specifically addressing the use of templated reports and unethical citation practices. As part of our commitment to maintaining the highest standards in scholarly publishing, we are taking prompt action to resolve the issues.

Key Points and Initial Findings of the Investigation

• A total of 84 papers spanning 23 journals are potentially affected by templated reports and citation misconduct.

• Reviewers recommended 2-4 references in 70 articles, with 47 containing unrelated references and 37 involving self-citations. In 40 papers, recommended citations were not included.

• Ten reviewers have been identified as implicated in these irregularities.

• The issue does not seem to be tied to any particular special issue.

• There are no strong indications of any relationship between authors and the implicated reviewers.

• Guest editor involvement appears unproblematic, without any evidence suggesting misconduct.

Overall, the present situation primarily appears to be a case of reviewer misconduct, involving fraudulent and templated reports, coupled with a citation cartel. Some reviewers may have formed a ring to self-cite their colleagues involved in these reviews.

Next Steps

MDPI is taking several proactive steps to address this issue:

1. Contact reviewers: We are reaching out to the implicated reviewers to request an explanation of their behavior and to confirm their identities.

2. Inform affected parties: Authors and academic editors of the affected articles will be promptly informed, and post-publication peer review will be initiated for 30 papers.

3. Coordinate with institutions: We are collaborating with academic institutions to address the behavior of the reviewers involved.

4. Citation evaluation: We will initiate an evaluation and potential correction process for irrelevant citations found in the 47 identified articles.

5. Collaboration for revisions: MDPI is working closely with authors and academic editors to determine necessary revisions and corrections.

MDPI is committed to transparency and integrity in scholarly publishing. We will provide updates as the investigation progresses and appreciate your understanding and cooperation in addressing this matter.

MDPI Communications
Contact