A leading medical journal has withdrawn the majority of articles from a special issue published in 2019 after identifying serious concerns related to the integrity of the editorial and review process, as well as unusual patterns linked to device usage.
According to an editorial, seven out of eight papers included in the themed issue have now been retracted. The withdrawn content also includes an editorial piece that primarily discussed the now-retracted studies, further undermining the integrity of the collection as a whole.
Concerns Over Editorial Oversight and Reviewer Selection
The publisher reported that the peer review process for the issue had been significantly compromised. An internal investigation found that the guest editor, whose identity has not been disclosed, was responsible for selecting reviewers. A large proportion of these reviewers were affiliated with the same institution, raising concerns about independence and objectivity in the evaluation process.
The journal concluded that the review system for this issue was “irreparably compromised,” leading to a loss of confidence in the validity of the published findings.
Unusual Patterns in Device Usage
In addition to peer review concerns, the investigation identified what was described as “improbable device use” across several articles. This issue reportedly relates to instances where identical devices appeared to be used by researchers who were expected to operate independently. While detailed technical explanations were not disclosed due to legal considerations, the publisher indicated that such patterns contributed to doubts about the authenticity of the research.
Scope and Impact of the Retracted Articles
The special issue focused on genomic dimensions of cancer immunotherapy, covering areas such as immunogenetics, functional genomics, and methodological approaches. Collectively, the now-retracted articles had accumulated approximately 350 citations, indicating a notable impact on the field before their withdrawal.
Notably, the only paper that remains unaffected is a breast cancer case report authored by researchers from a U.S.-based institution.
Detection and Evolving Integrity Tools
The publisher stated that the issues were identified using analytical tools designed to detect irregularities in published research. These tools, developed and implemented over the last few years, have enhanced journals’ ability to identify patterns that may not have been detectable at the time of publication.
Publisher Response and Policy Changes
In response to the findings, the journal has reviewed and strengthened its editorial policies, particularly concerning guest-edited collections. The editor-in-chief acknowledged that the topic of the special issue fell outside the journal’s usual scope and was accepted under a different editorial framework.
Broader Implications for Scholarly Publishing
This case highlights ongoing vulnerabilities associated with guest-edited special issues, which have increasingly come under scrutiny in recent years. Concerns about compromised peer review and coordinated submissions have led several publishers to reassess or temporarily suspend such formats.
The incident underscores the importance of robust editorial oversight, transparent reviewer selection, and the use of advanced screening tools to safeguard research integrity.