Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM; published by Hindawi) is an open-access journal that has been in existence since 2004. It bills itself as “an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine.” The journal has a chief editor, 17 associate editors, and a few hundred “academic editors” who participate in the peer-review process. During its 19 years in existence, eCAM has published nearly 13,000 papers. Currently, the journal charges an author $2,550 to have their article published.

The June 21, 2023 issue of eCAM consisted almost entirely of a list of papers that have been retracted by the journal. In all, 320 papers were retracted. A brief look at approximately 50 of those papers revealed that all of them had come from China. Most of the retracted papers were published in 2022, although some were published in 2021. Subsequently, the July 12, 2023 issue of this journal retracted an additional 16 papers, all from China.

Long-time readers of the Townsend Letter know that, over the past several years, I have been concerned about the large and growing number of published papers that left me wondering whether the research was fabricated. Most of the questionable research has come from Iran, but there have also been concerns about papers from China, Egypt, Japan, India, Italy, and a few other countries. The retraction of 320 papers from a single journal now puts China right up there with Iran regarding questionable research.

My brief review of 12 of the retracted papers revealed that they were all accompanied by the same retraction notice. The editors noted that their investigations found various problems, including discrepancies in scope; discrepancies in the description of the research reported; discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described; inappropriate citations; incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article; and peer-review manipulation.

The editors of eCAM are to be commended for conducting a thorough review and for their promise to do a better peer-review job in the future. However, even if eCAM fulfills that promise, there are still many other journals that have unacceptably lax peer-review processes.

The enormous number of questionable Chinese papers that appeared in a single journal over a relatively short period of time has made it more difficult to trust research that comes from China. That is bad for the legitimate Chinese researchers, and also for those of us who value integrity in science.

Published August 12, 2023