into English, based on a recommendation of some Harvard molecular biologists colleagues who had mockreviewed the paper. Then these fake manuscripts were submitted at a rate of 10 per week to a multitude of journals. A few publishers requested a fee to be paid up front. Those were excluded from the process, which means that the remaining used the standard model: fee for publication after acceptance. If a journal rejected the paper it was also excluded from further actions. If the paper came back and the journal asked for revisions, the author complied. If it was accepted, the author withdrew the paper with the comment that an“ embarrassing mistake” was found.“ By the time the Science went to press, 157 of the journals had accepted the paper and 98 had rejected it. Of the remaining 49 journals, 29 seem to be derelict: websites abandoned by their creators. Editors from the other 20 had e-mailed the fictitious corresponding authors stating that the paper is still under review; those too, are excluded from this analysis.... Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60 % of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. … Of the 106 journals that discernibly performed a review, 70 % ultimately accepted the paper. Most reviews focused exclusively on the papers layout, formatting, and language” 1 Even if some open access journals rejected these fake papers and J. Bohannon was criticized for not having a control group, this is bad news for the credibility of the scientific community. Therefore scientists should only submit to Journals they know, where the Editor is a known personality in their research field and where they know that a sound peer review process is performed, which is a laborious task. 3 Dear Readers, I am proud to be Editor of a Journal that takes peer review very seriously! Sincerely yours, J-F Roulet Editor-in-Chief
Literature 1.“ Budapest Open Access Initiative | Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative”. www. budapestopenaccessinitiative. org. 2. Bohannon J. Who’ s afraid of peer review? Science. 2013; 342( 6154): 60-65. doi: 10.1126 / science. 342.6154.60. 3. Roulet J-F. Life long learning in a world of globalized knowledge. Stoma Edu J. 2016; 3( 1): 6-7.
Editorial
123