Peer Review Fraud

Peer review fraud (also called peer review manipulation) is the deliberate corruption of the manuscript review process to secure a favorable, or falsely rigorous-looking, editorial decision. It is distinct from ordinary reviewer disagreement, unconscious bias, or an editorial system error — the defining feature is intent to subvert the review itself, not the outcome of a good-faith review.

How the scheme typically works

Most documented cases exploit one specific editorial-workflow weakness: many journals ask submitting authors to suggest potential reviewers, since niche subfields often have few qualified independent reviewers available to an editor. Author-suggested-reviewer fraud abuses this by supplying a real researcher’s name paired with a fabricated or author-controlled email address, or by inventing a reviewer identity outright. The editorial system then routes the “review” request to the author (or a paid intermediary), who writes a favorable report and returns it as if from an independent expert. A related pattern is the peer review ring: a group of researchers who create multiple fake reviewer accounts and reciprocally review (and approve) one another’s manuscripts, sometimes including reviewing one’s own paper under an alias.

A separate but related manipulation is coercive citation, where a legitimate reviewer conditions a favorable recommendation on the authors adding citations to the reviewer’s own work, unrelated to the manuscript’s actual scholarly merit.

Documented cases and mass retractions

Fabricated peer review has produced several of the largest mass-retraction events on record, each uncovered through publisher-side technical investigation (typically flagged reviewer-email domain mismatches):

• SAGE, Journal of Vibration and Control (2014): a 14-month investigation found researcher Peter Chen had created as many as 130 fake reviewer/author aliases on the journal’s SAGE Track system, in some cases reviewing his own papers; SAGE retracted 60 articles tied to the ring.
• Springer, 10 subscription journals (August 2015): internal checks caught fake reviewer email addresses, leading to the retraction of 64 articles for fabricated peer review reports.
• BioMed Central (2015): a related investigation, months earlier the same year, led to 43 article retractions for the same fake-review mechanism.
• Springer, Tumor Biology (April 2017): the single largest fake-peer-review retraction event to date — 107 papers retracted at once after the publisher found reviewer suggestions carrying real researchers’ names attached to fabricated email addresses.

These events, and the many smaller ones that followed, are documented in detail by Retraction Watch and prompted publisher-wide changes to reviewer-verification workflows (e.g. requiring reviewer emails to match institutional or ORCID-linked records rather than accepting author-supplied addresses at face value).

Why it matters for research administration

Peer review fraud is now treated by COPE and major publishers as a form of research misconduct distinct from, but often co-occurring with, paper mill activity, since paper mills frequently supply both the manuscript and the fabricated review that gets it published. Institutions handling a misconduct allegation involving fabricated review should treat editorial-system audit logs (IP addresses, account creation dates, email domains) as primary evidence, and should expect the publisher’s own investigation to run in parallel with any institutional inquiry.

Related terms

• Coercive citation
• Research misconduct
• Peer review
• Paper mill

References

• Retraction Watch, “SAGE Publications busts ‘peer review and citation ring,’ 60 papers retracted” (2014)
• Retraction Watch, “64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals” (2015)
• Retraction Watch, “A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews” (2017)

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “fake peer review” mean?

Fake peer review is a common name for peer review fraud, also called peer review manipulation — the deliberate corruption of the manuscript review process to secure a favorable, or falsely rigorous-looking, editorial decision. It is distinct from ordinary reviewer disagreement or an editorial system error, since the defining feature is intent to subvert the review itself.

How do authors fake peer review using suggested reviewers?

Many journals let submitting authors suggest potential reviewers, since niche subfields often have few qualified independent reviewers available to an editor. Authors abuse this by supplying a real researcher’s name paired with a fabricated or author-controlled email address, or by inventing a reviewer identity outright, so the “review” request is routed back to the author or a paid intermediary, who writes a favorable report and returns it as if from an independent expert.

What is a peer review ring?

A peer review ring is a group of researchers who create multiple fake reviewer accounts and reciprocally review, and approve, one another’s manuscripts, sometimes including reviewing one’s own paper under an alias.

How do publishers usually catch fake peer reviews?

The largest documented cases were caught through publisher-side technical investigation, typically flagged reviewer-email domain mismatches uncovered during editorial system audits. Following the mass retractions at SAGE, Springer, and BioMed Central, many publishers changed their reviewer-verification workflows to require reviewer emails to match institutional or ORCID-linked records rather than accepting author-supplied addresses at face value.

Is fake peer review the same as a paper mill?

Not exactly. Peer review fraud is treated by COPE and major publishers as a form of research misconduct distinct from paper mill activity, though the two often co-occur since paper mills frequently supply both the manuscript and the fabricated review that gets it published.

What should an institution do if it suspects fake peer review?

Institutions handling a misconduct allegation involving fabricated review should treat editorial-system audit logs — IP addresses, account creation dates, and email domains — as primary evidence, and should expect the publisher’s own investigation to run in parallel with any institutional inquiry.