In a significant development within the academic publishing community, the South African Journal of Botany, published by Elsevier, has retracted three articles authored by Dr. Vijay Kumar, a botany researcher at Lovely Professional University, Punjab, India. The retractions followed an investigation revealing that Kumar, in his capacity as managing guest editor of the special issues in which the papers appeared, was involved in their peer review and decision-making processes.
Kumar, acknowledging the retractions, described his involvement as a “purely unintentional” and “foolish mistake.” However, Elsevier’s editorial policies strictly prohibit guest editors from participating in the handling of their own submissions or those of colleagues and associates, citing potential conflicts of interest and concerns over the integrity of the peer review process.
Details of the Retracted Papers
The three retracted papers included:
- “Optimization of lycorine using Response Surface Methodology, extraction methods and in vitro antioxidant and anti-diabetic activities from the roots of Giant Spider Lily: A medicinally important bulbous herb.” (Published in 2022)
- “The potential of plant-derived secondary metabolites as novel drug candidates against Klebsiella pneumoniae: Molecular docking and simulation investigation.” (Published in 2022)
- “In vitro propagation and assessment of genetic fidelity in Dioscorea deltoidea, a potent diosgenin yielding endangered plant.” (Published in 2020)
Concerns regarding the 2020 article first surfaced on PubPeer, an online platform for post-publication peer review, where an anonymous user pointed out the dual role of Kumar as both author and editor. Similar concerns were raised in 2023 about the other two articles, leading to their eventual retraction earlier this month.
Elsevier’s Response and Retraction Notice
The official retraction notices stated:
“This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief as the reliability of the peer-review process of the article cannot be guaranteed. After a thorough investigation, the Editor and publisher have concluded that the Managing Guest Editor of the Special Issue, Dr. Vijay Kumar, was also an author of the article and involved in the peer review and decision making.”
The notices further characterized the situation as an abuse of the scientific publishing system, offering apologies to the journal’s readership.
Interestingly, discrepancies were noted in the retraction notices. Some pages included internal communications such as instructions to “Specify details needed for R&R panel to evaluate the case,” while another suggested that one of the articles was retracted due to “accidental duplication” of previously published work.
Reactions from Stakeholders
Dr. Kumar defended his actions, claiming that co-guest editors had handled the initial submission process and that his role in the revision stage was inadvertent. “The revised manuscript was assigned to me by the journal (as a managing guest editor), and by mistake, I sent it to the same reviewers, which was purely unintentional,” Kumar explained.
However, one of his co-authors, Dr. Namrata Misra from Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology in Odisha, stated that she was unaware of Kumar’s involvement in the peer review process and disagreed with the retraction, though she declined to comment further.
This is not the first time Kumar’s work has faced scrutiny; in 2023, two other papers co-authored by him were retracted following allegations of image duplication brought forward by PubPeer users.
Elsevier’s Updated Editorial Policies
Elsevier has since reinforced its editorial policies to prevent such conflicts of interest in the future. The updated guidelines explicitly state that:
- Guest editors must not handle or make decisions on papers they have authored or co-authored.
- Any such submissions must undergo independent peer review, with a clear statement declaring the editor’s non-involvement.
- Guest editors should not submit more than one article to their special issue.
In response to this incident, an Elsevier spokesperson confirmed that the publisher is investigating how Kumar’s dual role escaped detection before publication and emphasized their commitment to upholding publication ethics and maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous editorial oversight and adherence to ethical publishing practices. It also underscores the need for journals to employ stringent mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest that may compromise the objectivity and reliability of published research.
The scientific community will likely be closely monitoring how Elsevier and other publishers refine their peer review policies to prevent such incidents in the future. Meanwhile, Kumar’s situation highlights the professional and reputational risks associated with editorial conflicts of interest, even when claimed to be unintentional.
While Dr. Kumar has taken responsibility for the oversight, the academic publishing landscape continues to evolve with stricter guidelines to ensure credibility and trust in scientific research. Publishers and researchers alike must remain vigilant to uphold the highest standards of ethical scholarship.