Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Publishing: The peer-review scam

Nature volume 515, pages 480–482 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

Most journal editors know how much effort it takes to persuade busy researchers to review a paper. That is why the editor of The Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author — Hyung-In Moon, a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky are the staff writer and two co-founders, respectively, of Retraction Watch in New York City.,

    Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky

Authors
  1. Cat Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Marcus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivan Oransky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

Related links in Nature Research

Faked peer reviews prompt 64 retractions 2015-Aug-18

The scientists who get credit for peer review 2014-Oct-09

Journals weigh up double-blind peer review 2014-Jul-15

Peer reviewers urged to speak their minds 2013-Dec-04

Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing 2013-Mar-27

Nature peer-review policies

Related external links

Retraction Watch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferguson, C., Marcus, A. & Oransky, I. Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature 515, 480–482 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing