How the Wiley Group, the most prestigious publisher of scientific journals, risked its reputation

In recent years, the scientific community has witnessed a disturbing phenomenon that is undermining trust in academic publications: ‘retractions’.

But what exactly does it mean to retract, or withdraw, a scientific article? In simple terms, a retraction occurs when an article – previously reviewed, authorised for publication and then published – is officially withdrawn by the journal that accepted it. The reasons why an article is withdrawn are varied, but the most common are serious data errors, irregularities in research methods, plagiarism, or lack of scientific integrity. While retractions are an integral part of science – a mechanism through which error (unintentional, or voluntary) is corrected – we are seeing a worrying increase in withdrawn articles, especially from journals that are supposed to ensure scientific quality, but in reality seem to do nothing more than favour the … commercial aspect.

One of the main causes of this crisis is the explosion of open-access scientific journals. Traditionally, peer-reviewed journals have been self-financed by reader subscriptions, but also by the free work of reviewers and authors themselves. Now, the open-access business model introduces a new dynamic: to publish, it is the authors who have to pay a fee to the journal. The latter, in return, makes the article accessible to all readers free of charge. In theory, this approach democratises access to science: research centres, universities and individual researchers no longer have to bear high costs just to keep abreast of the research world. But in practice, the model contributes to the proliferation of publications which, unfortunately, are not always subjected to properpeer review(the famous ‘peer review‘ we have already mentioned several times).

And this is where Hindawi Publishing comes in. It immediately adopted the open-access model and achieved huge circulation of its articles, international prestige and a considerable growth in influence. But some also began to suspect problems with the quality of the publications. It is no coincidence that the number of suspect articles (superficial, incorrect or blatantly fraudulent) published under its aegis increases over the years to alarming levels.

The paid ‘article factory’: the Hindawi model

Hindawi became famous for taking its open-access business model to extremes. In a context where a researcher’s career depends on the amount of publications, it is not difficult to see how open-access journals can become a profitable business. The author pays, the journal publishes, the author increases the volume of his or her publications and thus his or her academic prestige, measured on this very parameter.

For their part, rather than focusing on the quality of research, many scientific journals become veritable ‘factories’ of articles, aiming solely at publishing as many studies as possible to maximise their earnings.

In the case of Hindawi, the growth soon became exponential: within a few years, the number of articles published increased from around 2,500 per year to no less than 13,000, with over 300 journals specialising in different scientific fields. An overwhelming success that, however, has raised legitimate questions about how these articles are selected and published.

The pressure to meet publication demands leads many journals to reduce editorial standards, allowing the publication of scientific papers that do not meet minimum validity requirements. Authors, for their part, are driven by the increasing academic competitiveness to pay to publish, with figures that often hover around USD 800 per article. A cost that, unfortunately, does not incentivise quality, but creates a market where the speed of publication trumps the soundness of the data and conclusions.

The scandal begins: retractions avalanche

It is no coincidence that the Hindawi model leads to an exponential increase not only in publications, but also in retractions. In recent years, more and more articles published in Hindawi journals are being withdrawn for irregularities ranging from plagiarism to the use of falsified data to a clear statement that some scientific work is worthless. In 2023, the number of withdrawn articles jumps to more than 7,000, surpassing the peak of 2022, which had stopped the total at ‘only’ 6,000 retractions.

This increase is the direct result of internal investigations conducted by the prestigious Wiley, Hindawi’s parent publishing house, which has had to come to terms with the reality of a nefarious system that allows the publication of fraudulent articles with no scientific validity. In an attempt to remedy this, Wiley closed 19 journals from its catalogue. But the truth is that, unfortunately, the damage to its noble reputation has already been done.

Many withdrawn articles turn out to be the result of deceptive practices on the part of the authors, or even written by artificial intelligences. A clear sign that the peer review system, which should guarantee quality, has been circumvented with the help of questionable techniques, revealing a system that actually favours quantity at the expense of quality.

The ‘goodies’

Some of the cases that emerged highlighted the extent of the problem and the seriousness of the irregularities. Let us look at some of them.

In 2014, the Journal Citation Reports excluded three journals of the Hindawi group from indexing because of their non-standard citation patterns, such as citing themselves as the primary source and nesting multiple citations inside each other. Rather like, in order to sustain his innocence, the thief calls to witness… himself. And maybe even a couple of accomplices.

In 2015, after an internal investigation, Hindawi identified 32 articles manipulated by editors who created fake peer reviewer accounts and favoured the publications of certain authors. No checks are made on the genuineness and competence of the scientists who are commissioned to carry out the peer-review. Even if the publisher imposes corrective measures, the damage to trust in peer review will be significant.

In 2018, an epidemiological study published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health on the risks of mobile phones in causing brain cancer (glioblastoma) becomes a textbook case. The paper, which claimed links between mobile phone use and the occurrence of that cancer, is accompanied by a press release that greatly exaggerates the findings. In interviews, the authors (without any academic affiliation) sensationalistically emphasise the results, fuelling a controversy that undermines the very credibility of the study. A subsequent analysis concludes that the entire work lacks scientific foundation.

In 2023, in one of the most recent and most serious cases, it was discovered that entire scientific articles are created using artificial intelligence, almost automatically, without any supervision by the researchers themselves or qualified experts. These articles are then published without proper verification, leading – at the end of the investigation – to their subsequent massive retraction. It is estimated that around 10-13% of the articles published in 2023 will show clear signs of coming from ‘paper mills’, i.e. wholesale factories of scientific articles, which produce large-scale fictitious studies in an automated manner.

Wiley’s flight forward and its cost in terms of reputation

Wiley, despite taking action, continued to pursue a policy oriented towards quantity rather than quality. This approach provoked numerous protests from editorial boards that resigned en bloc, such as that of the Journal of Economic Surveys. The editor received criticism for prioritising accounting figures rather than strict selection and review criteria. The issue has raised questions about how the publishing business model can damage the credibility of science and undermine the value of scientific publications.

The long-term implications: a system that rewards fraud?

All this leads to a critical reflection: to what extent can academic publishing continue to operate in this way? With a system that rewards quantity rather than quality, the risk is that science will increasingly become a race to publish articles for money, regardless of the validity of the data and the quality of the research. The retractions of fraudulent articles are just the tip of the iceberg of a phenomenon that could have devastating consequences for the future of science.

The opaque practices and questionable management of some journals, such as Hindawi, raise legitimate concerns not only for the reliability of scientific results, but also for the integrity of the academic system in general. When articles are published without proper review and quality assurance, there is a risk of distorting data, compromising research and distorting the judgement of evaluation committees. This may negatively affect the distribution of resources, funds and academic positions, generating a vicious cycle that will harm the progress of science itself.

As open-access scientific publishing continues to gain ground, it is crucial that stricter controls and measures are introduced to protect the integrity of research. It is not enough to say that ‘science is democratically open-access’; it must also be ensured that it is trustworthy. If solutions are not put in place to curb fraudulent practices, what we get is not science, but a commercial affair that debases the very meaning of academic research. If we also factor in the spread of generative AI tools, we risk a world in which AIs write scientific articles, publishers pass them on to other AIs for validation and… And then, how will we distinguish science from pseudoscience?