Fake Peer Review Scandal

Michael Bertram is a _________.

• behavioral ecologist and ecotoxicologist

• aquatic chemist

• paleoclimatologist

• marine biologist

Where does Michael Bertram work?​ ​

• Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
• Stanford University
• Oxford University
• Boston University
• The University of Edinburgh

What type of academic fraud does this Science news article focus on?

• Plagiarism

• Fake peer reviews

• Data fabrication

• Ghostwriting

How many papers were retracted by Elsevier as of 22 November?

• 22

• 10

• 5

• 30

Editors ask authors to submit names and emails of possible reviewers when they submit their manuscript for publication. Authors can abuse the peer review process by suggesting real scientists with relevant

expertise but they give a fake email address that they have created. How could this level of academic fraud be avoided?

[Select All That Apply]

• All emails need to be properly vetted first by the editors to avoid this situation in the future.

• Even though gmail may be commonly used, requiring only institutional emails could avoid this situation in the future.

• There's nothing they can do to stop this kind of academic fraud.

Why were the peer reviews considered fake?

• They were written and signed using the name of known scientists

  without their knowledge.

• They were written using the name of made up scientists as authors of the peer review.

• The peer reviews were imaginary.

• The peer reviews were generated by AI.

Who lost confidence in the validity of the articles that were retracted?

• The Editors-in-Chief

• The authors

• The reviewers

• The public

Who was the ecotoxicologist mentioned in the retraction notices?

• John Smith

• Guilherme Malafaia

• Maria Garcia

• Robert Brown

What did Malafaia send to Science?

• A research paper

• A 28-page open letter to the scientific community

• A resignation letter

• A book manuscript

• An apology

The publisher will likely do what with the more than 70 papers Malafaia has published in the journal?

• Retract 47 of them

• Forget this situation ever happened

• Ask for more peer reviews authored by this scientist

• Tell him he can only write peer reviews on work that he is an co-author.