稿件被标记为编辑x，因为已收到审阅者的报告表明非常高的兴趣。此时，稿件已通过一轮审查，修订和重新审查，并建立所有三个审查员，恕不另行修改而被接受。
在检查三个评论员的凭据时，编辑X无法找到任何一个的发布记录。根据作者建议，所有三种评论员都被发现。为建议的作者提供了机构，但随附的电子邮件地址均具有Webmail服务。发现审稿人不存在。
助理编辑y邀请了作者建议的审稿人和两个自己的选择，既不是谁回答了邀请。
After it was determined that the reviewer suggestions were faked, a previous publication by the same authors with the same ‘fake’ reviewers was identified.
Following the recommendations of COPE regarding a recent similar case discussed at the COPE Forum (case number 12-12), all of the authors were contacted to ask if they could supply more details of the suggested reviewers, but they have not responded. We have attempted to find a contact at the authors’ institution. It has proved difficult to identify a research ethics committee, any individual senior member of the university or contacts for the university administration. During other searches, a vice principal of the university was identified but was found to be the senior author on both manuscripts.
我们现在正在寻求关于未发表和公布的手稿的最佳行动方案的指导，在没有作者的任何反应以及作者机构没有可靠的联系。我们目前的意图是拒绝审查的稿件并发出已发布的文章的萎缩。
论坛同意这种情况下了by the failure of journal processes and their peer review system. Good practice is always to check the names, addresses and email contacts of reviewers, and especially those that are recommended by authors. Editors should never use only the preferred reviewer. While the Forum recognise that finding reviewers can be difficult and that the peer review system can be hard, simple checks can avoid a similar situation in the future. The Forum agreed that the publisher should take some responsibility as it is their duty to support their editors. The editorial office clearly needs guidance and step by step procedures.
然后有作者试图欺骗系统的问题。这一建议是继续尝试联系提交人和作者的机构，并告知他们情况，解释作者的不恰当和可能的犯罪行为。作者应该被告知，如果没有收到响应，则之前的文件将缩回。其他建议是考虑重新审查已发布的文章。
还有人建议编辑可能会考虑在这个问题上撰写社论。
进一步的建议：
The case was also discussed at the North American Forum (18 October 2012). Additional advice was to require an institutional email address in addition to a webmail address for any suggested reviewers and for editors to send correspondence to both addresses. Another suggestion was to verify the webmail address with an IP address route trace, which the participant suggested was relatively simple and could be performed by anyone if there were no IT department to assist with the task.
With regard to the specific manuscripts in this case, the one that was under review has been rejected with a warning to the authors that the activity was unacceptable. For the published manuscript, we have had discussions with the editor concerned but the final resolution of the case is still in progress. We have received no response from the authors and no success in finding contacts in their institution, although we are pursuing another avenue to try and identify one.
我们越来越多，公司对防止未来案件进行了一些广泛的讨论。在我们的系统中有一些短期修复和更全面的技术补充计划，这些制度应该有助于防止新的一年中的这些和其他形式的作者不当行为。
Update (June 2013)
对于已发布的稿件，我们遵循应对建议并进行出版后的同行评审。审查手稿的编辑委员会成员发现了与文章的缺陷，我们现在将采取措施撤回它。
然而，鉴于这笔撤回所犯罪的敏感性，我们还想与解释性编辑陪同。
We have made a number of technical changes to our systems. On submission, where authors suggest potential peer reviewers we issue this warning: “Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in the manuscript being rejected.”
当稿件与外部编辑共享以邀请潜在审核人员进行邀请时，我们也明确表示，他们应该检查作者建议的审稿人是否有必要的专业知识，以便在邀请对同行审查进行合理评估手稿的专业知识。
The IP address tip was very useful and we did find that the IP address of the reviewer ‘matched’ that of the author in this case. We are thinking of developing an automatic warning system such that if a peer reviewer returns a report on a manuscript with an IP address that matches that of the authors, then the peer review process is halted.
我们现在考虑此案例已关闭，并将继续发出与随附的编辑进行撤回。
Comments
当我想知道后续细节时，我正在寻找一些案例编号12-16的阅读材料。我想知道这方面讨论的摘要以及防止未来类似案件的措施。
发表评论