We are dealing with 5+ papers that are fraudulent and another 5+ newer papers that are most likely fraudulent, too. That is, there have been 20, 25+ reviewers looking at those papers. Their job was to carefully read them and double check the numbers. All of them gave those papers a pass. I am at a loss here.
The authors' behaviour is outrageous, but this story is also about a broken reviewing process, partly due to wrong incentives.
The authors' behaviour is outrageous, but this story is also about a broken reviewing process, partly due to wrong incentives.