How often is the managing editor of a major peer review journal also the lead author of a study appearing in that same journal?
To put an even finer point on it, how often in such cases is the “peer review” process a scam?
Thanks to Retraction Watch, the web site that tracks bad behavior on the part of peer-reviewed authors, we have an answer. (http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/26/the-peer-review-scam-how-authors-are-reviewing-their-own-papers/ ).
In a post titled “The Peer Review Scam: How authors are reviewing their own papers”, Retraction Watch reported on BioMed Central’s discovery that there were about 50 papers in their editorial system whose authors had recommended fake peer reviewers.
Said the writers for Retraction Watch:
“In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that—in at least one of the systems—could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. While this is a story about a technological vulnerability, the fact that many journals ask authors to recommend reviewers plays a big role (emphasis added).”
The Spine Journal
Has anything like this ever happened to otherwise well regarded orthopedic journals?
Yes, it has.
In June 2011, The Spine Journal (TSJ) devoted its entire issue to a critique of BMP-2. The lead author of the critique was also The Spine Journal’s editor in chief—Eugene J. Carragee, M.D.
Retraction Watch noted in their examination of cases where peer-review publishing houses like Elsevier (publisher of The Spine Journal) allowed papers to be published where peer-review rigging had occurred the issue is that journals ask authors to recommend reviewers.
What do you do when a journal’s editor is also the author of a study? And not just any study, but a study that tackles such a controversial issue as BMP-2?
Did Editor Carragee ask Author Carragee to recommend an editor and a slate of peer-reviewers? And what did Author Carragee say to Editor Carragee? We doubt there was much discussion or debate.
Festering Bias
These concerns would not still be surfacing if the original June 2011 study by Carragee didn’t have so many flaws—both methodological and data analytic flaws—or if either NASS (North American Spine Society) or Elsevier had listened to the call from many corners of the spine community for a review of the Carragee paper to determine if, in fact, he had omitted data or mis-characterized payments to researchers.
Given the importance of these issues and the magnitude of concern over Carragee’s handling of these conflict of interest issues, NASS’ and Elsevier’s radio silence is confounding.
Shouldn’t these concerns have been put to bed by now?
As Retraction Watch and the BioMed Central study are clearly showing, this issue will not get better over time. In orthopedics, this single example of an editor also being the author of a highly controversial and flawed study brings the Retraction Watch concerns close to home.
Carragee’s June 2011 Study
Carragee’s June 2011 study claimed that 13 original rhBMP-2 studies were seriously flawed because of payments to the authors of those studies from the study’s sponsor, Medtronic, Inc. Carragee and his fellow authors then embarked on an aggressive PR campaign to convince regulators, CMS, and the general public that both patients and physicians who used rhBMP-2 had been “living dangerously” over the decades since those studies were published.
When we reviewed Carragee’s study in 2011 we discovered a number of deeply troubling mistakes, omissions, and what appeared to us to have been a systematic pattern of bias.
There were three specific areas which caused us concern:
- Omissions of facts which had the potential to change the conclusions of TSJ’s study.
- Data used out of context.
- Errors in logic which, in turn, impugned the integrity of dozens of researchers. This, in our view, created a clear appearance of intellectual dishonesty.
OTW’s Call for Carragee’s Resignation
When no independent investigation occurred to check these allegations and Carragee repeated the flawed data from the podium at NASS and in press releases, this publication called for his resignation in June 2013. Here is what we said:
“There are the duties and responsibilities all physicians have to uphold the canons of their profession. There are then the obligations of those to whom we rely on for impartial interpretation and analysis of clinical and scientific evidence.
“It has become increasingly clear that The Spine Journal Editor in Chief Dr. Eugene Carragee has abandoned even the pretense of impartiality.
“Dr. Eugene Carragee needs to step aside. If he doesn’t, the publisher (Elsevier) and the board of trustees for the North American Spine Society need to meet and review Dr. Carragee’s research and public comments regarding BMP-2, Infuse, Medtronic and all of the clinical researchers who’ve been attacked by him in both press release form and in the pages of The Spine Journal.
“As for The Spine Journal, the peer review publication of the North American Spine Society which has been the standard for excellence in clinical and scientific spine research since 2001, it must act immediately. Dr. Carragee’s failure to maintain impartiality and good judgment have clearly damaged this outstanding journal.
“This is not about BMP-2 or Infuse or Medtronic. This is about scientific impartiality, avoidance of hyperbole in pursuit of clinical accuracy and navigating the often conflicting opinions of passionate clinicians. In short, it is about mature scientific leadership. Our peer review journal editors must be paradigms of clinical and scientific judgment.”
“He (Dr. Carragee) has spoken eloquently in the past about eliminating bias from clinical research. Unfortunately, he has failed that test personally and professionally at a time when the broader spine surgeon community and patient population needed a cool, reasoned scientific voice most.
“Some people will argue that Dr. Carragee should be allowed to finish out his multi-year contract as The Spine Journal’s editor. Given what we know now, we don’t agree.
“If Elsevier or NASS will, as we recommend, review Dr. Carragee’s statements and invite those former BMP-2 researchers whom he has accused of being bought and paid for by Medtronic to present their side of the story, we are confident that the arguments on behalf of Carragee as Editor in Chief of The Spine Journal will collapse in their entirety.”
The Problem of Author Self-Referring Reviewers
This is a link to BioMed’s discussion—blog examining the case this morning
Finally, as Retraction Watch readers like OTW have noted, fake reviews—often involving self-peer review—have been the basis for a growing number of retractions.
Here is what the journal Nature said on the larger phenomenon “The Peer Review Scam.”
As Retraction Watch reminds us, orthopedics is not immune from self-peer-review temptation. Vigilance is the price of honesty.
