Computing journal retracts 13 papers, including four from past EIC
An Elsevier journal on computer applications in biomedicine has retracted 13 papers — including four by a former editor-in-chief — for suspicious authorship changes and erroneous citations. The articles were published in Computers in Biology and Medicine from 2019 to 2023. The October 15 retraction notices list suspicious changes in authorship, irrelevant citations to the … Continue reading…
The Elsevier journal Computers in Biology and Medicine has retracted 13 papers, including works from former editor-in-chief Huiling Chen, due to questionable authorship alterations, irrelevant citations, self-plagiarism, and requests by impartial field experts. Chen, who was an editor from 2021 to 2024, had four papers retracted, with one cited 107 times, according to Clarivate's Web of Science.
A PubPeer commenter questioned the relevance of the citations, stating that the paper contained "puzzling" and "vapid sentences" justifying a series of unrelated, transactional citations. Chen disagreed with the severity of the retractions, claiming that the citations were added during manuscript revisions and that peer reviewers asked for more context.
However, he acknowledged that the reference lists became excessive, containing weakly relevant, redundant, or unnecessary citations. Five authors were added and one removed from an August 2021 article on lupus, which Chen coauthored; these changes were not approved by the journal. Chen was also named in a fifth article under review despite having a strong collaboration history with one of the paper's authors.
In September, Elsevier's Science of the Total Environment also retracted over 100 papers, some due to conflicts of interest. Elsevier's policies state editors cannot be involved in decisions about their own or their colleagues' work, but the page doesn't define "colleague." Three retractions in Computers in Biology and Medicine state authors were asked by two reviewers to insert irrelevant references during the peer-review process.
Elsevier declined to comment on the matter, including whether the journal banned peer reviewers or changed the editorial process.
Written by urgent.news from Retraction Watch's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
