Environmental Toxicology, a journal published by Wiley, has recently retracted 26 research articles due to concerns over a compromised peer review process. The retractions, occurring in multiple batches between November 2023 and February 2024, highlight ongoing challenges in maintaining integrity within the scholarly publishing ecosystem.
Compromised Peer Review and Paper Mill Concerns
The retraction notices of all 26 articles stated that the papers were accepted solely based on a compromised peer review process, leading to their withdrawal. All affected authors are affiliated with Chinese universities, and many corresponding authors had email addresses not linked to academic institutions, often containing random sequences of characters, a pattern frequently associated with paper mills—organizations that produce fraudulent research for profit.
A Wiley spokesperson acknowledged that the journal had identified “concerning peer review patterns” in both published papers and manuscripts under review. While previous batches of November 2023 and January 2024 were retracted under the same investigation, Wiley has not yet confirmed whether additional retractions will follow.
Wiley’s History of Large-Scale Retractions
This is not the first instance of Wiley retracting large numbers of papers due to compromised peer review. In June 2024, the International Wound Journal also withdrew dozens of articles for similar concerns. Additionally, since acquiring Hindawi journals in 2021, Wiley has retracted more than 11,000 articles linked to fraudulent peer review practices and paper mills, marking one of the largest mass retractions in academic publishing history.
Author Disputes and Editorial Silence
While the retractions were agreed upon by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief and Wiley Periodicals LLC, some authors have challenged the decision.
- Nine of the 26 papers had at least one author who disagreed with the retraction.
- Dr. Zheng Lufeng, Associate Professor at China Pharmaceutical University, co-authored one of the retracted papers and claimed that authors were not responsible for peer review selection.
- He urged journal editors to revise retraction notices to clarify that authors had no involvement in the compromised process.
Despite multiple inquiries, neither the journal’s former Editor-in-Chief Paul B. Tchounwou nor the current Editor-in-Chief Christyn Bailey responded to requests for comment on the issue.
Implications for Research Integrity
The growing number of retractions highlights the vulnerability of academic publishing to fraudulent review practices, particularly as journals seek to increase output while maintaining quality control. This case reinforces the need for:
- Stronger editorial oversight and peer review verification
- Tighter journal submission policies to detect paper mills
- Greater transparency in the review and acceptance process
As Wiley continues its investigations into compromised research, the academic community will be closely watching how publishers and institutions strengthen measures to safeguard the integrity of scholarly communication.