A STAT News investigation published April 24, 2026 traces a growing wave of journal retractions to a specific structural weak point in scholarly publishing: guest-edited special issues. The piece, “Science journals have a problem with guest editors, special editions”, centers on a real, recently completed retraction case at a BMJ Group journal, then uses it to frame a broader, publisher-spanning pattern.
The case at the center: Journal of Medical Genetics
STAT’s anchor case is a 2019 guest-edited special issue of the Journal of Medical Genetics (BMJ Group), focused on cancer immunotherapies. On April 14, 2026, BMJ Group announced the retraction of 7 of the 8 papers in that collection, along with the collection’s linked editorial, which was retracted because it referred almost exclusively to the retracted papers.
According to BMJ Group’s own account of the investigation, the guest editor for the issue had selected the peer reviewers for the submitted papers, and the majority of those reviewers were affiliated with a single institution, Nanjing University in China. BMJ’s review found the peer-review process for 7 of the 8 papers had been “irreparably compromised.” The eighth paper was treated differently: an external review by a subject specialist found its content sound, and it was not retracted, though its record now notes the surrounding issue’s retractions.
Huw Dorkins, the journal’s current editor-in-chief, said the topic collection “was really out of scope for the journal, and accepted under a different editorial regime, when different processes applied” — pointing to a change in editorial leadership and controls between when the issue was commissioned and when the investigation caught up with it. Retraction Watch’s coverage of the same case corroborates the 7-of-8 count and the reviewer-affiliation finding.
Why special issues are structurally exposed
The mechanism STAT describes is not exotic: it is what happens when the ordinary checks on peer review are delegated rather than exercised. A guest editor is typically given real editorial authority — soliciting papers, in some cases proposing or approving reviewers — without necessarily being subject to the same standing oversight as the journal’s permanent editorial board. When that authority is combined with financial incentives that favor volume (article processing charges scale with published output) and with guest editors’ own incentive to fill an issue quickly using their own network, the result is a shorter, weaker path from submission to acceptance than a journal’s normal track.
CASRAI’s Guest Editor Vetting entry sets out what a defensible vetting process actually checks before someone is given that authority — conflict-of-interest screening, a documented review-assignment process, and oversight from the permanent editorial team, none of which appear to have been in place for the Journal of Medical Genetics issue at the time it was commissioned. The related concept of editorial independence is the standard a special issue is being measured against when a case like this is investigated: whether the acceptance decision was actually insulated from the guest editor’s own network and interests, or merely nominally so.
How big is the pattern, per STAT’s reporting
STAT situates the Journal of Medical Genetics case inside a larger trend it documents from retraction-tracking data and publisher disclosures:
- Springer Nature retracted 34 papers from special issues in 2024 citing compromised peer review.
- Of more than 64,000 retractions in the datasets STAT reviewed, roughly 20,000 trace back to paper-mill activity published through special issues specifically.
- The volume of special issues published by major houses grew substantially between 2016 and 2022.
- By STAT’s count, special issues made up around 20% of Elsevier’s articles (2018–2022), about 11% of Springer Nature’s, and about 12% of Taylor & Francis’s over comparable periods.
- One study STAT cites found that in 13% of special issues, the guest editor personally authored more than a third of the issue’s own papers.
Those figures describe publisher-wide patterns, not the Journal of Medical Genetics case specifically — treat the BMJ retraction as one recently documented instance of a mechanism STAT argues is common, not as a representative average.
What this means for editors, RIOs, and authors
For editorial offices and research integrity officers, the practical takeaway from both the case and the pattern is the same: a special issue needs the same review-provenance accountability as the regular track, not a lighter one. That means documenting who assigned which reviewer, keeping guest editors out of decisions on their own submissions and their close collaborators’, and giving the standing editorial board a real check on a guest editor’s acceptance decisions rather than a pro forma sign-off. CASRAI’s guide on COPE Flowcharts Explained walks through how an editor works through a retraction decision once compromised review is suspected, and How a Retraction Actually Happens covers the mechanics once that decision is made.
For authors and researchers invited to submit to — or guest-edit — a special issue, the STAT investigation is a reason to ask upfront questions rather than assume the same scrutiny applies as for the main journal: who is assigning reviewers, whether the guest editor discloses conflicts, and whether the standing editorial board retains sign-off authority. A journal that can answer those questions concretely is a materially different proposition than one that cannot.
Frequently asked questions
Was the Journal of Medical Genetics case a paper mill?
STAT and BMJ Group’s own statement describe it as a case of compromised peer review tied to reviewer selection by the guest editor, not a confirmed paper-mill operation in the sense of fabricated manuscripts sold to authors. The two problems are related — paper mills often exploit exactly this kind of weak, guest-editor-controlled review — but BMJ’s public statement on this case centers on the review process, not on fabrication findings.
How many papers were retracted, and when?
Seven of the eight papers in the 2019 special issue were retracted, along with the issue’s linked editorial, in an announcement BMJ Group made April 14, 2026. The eighth paper was independently reviewed and retained.
Is this limited to BMJ, or to this one journal?
No. STAT’s reporting frames the Journal of Medical Genetics case as one recent, well-documented example of a pattern it says spans multiple major publishers, citing Springer Nature’s 2024 special-issue retractions and broader data on special-issue volume and paper-mill-linked retractions across the industry.
What should a journal do differently before commissioning a guest-edited issue?
At minimum: vet the guest editor for conflicts of interest before granting them editorial authority, require reviewer assignments to be visible to and approvable by the standing editorial office rather than the guest editor alone, and keep the guest editor recused from decisions on their own or their close collaborators’ submissions. See CASRAI’s Guest Editor Vetting entry for the fuller checklist.
Sources: STAT News, “Science journals have a problem with guest editors, special editions” (April 24, 2026); BMJ Group, “Bulk of journal’s guest edited special issue content retracted” (April 14, 2026); Retraction Watch coverage of the same retraction.
