A materials science journal has pulled 56 papers so far this year for transgressions including image overlap, concerns about data integrity and “suspicious” changes in authorship.
Ceramics International began retracting the papers in July. More than 50 of the retractions were requested by an “impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics advisor,” according to the notices.
Most of the retraction notices – 43 – reference PubPeer comments calling out issues with the work. In emails we have seen, scientific sleuth Mu Yang flagged 80 papers from Ceramics International to the journal’s publisher, Elsevier, on April 23, 2025.
Among the articles Yang flagged, several, such as one published in July 2024, duplicated figures published in other articles with overlapping authors. Mu told Retraction Watch she felt papers like that one “fall into the category of generic, low-hanging-fruit, low-effort papermill papers.” Yang is the director of the Mouse Neurobehavior Core, a testing facility at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.
David Bimler, a retired perceptual psychologist from Massey University in New Zealand known pseudonymously as Smut Clyde, cosigned the April 2025 email to Elsevier. Bimler told us the “situation at Ceramics International looks rather messy at the moment.”
Four days after the sleuths emailed the journal, they received a reply from Rajendra Bordia, the co-editor-in-chief, who said he had alerted Elsevier and requested a meeting “to discuss the status of these investigations and also to discuss the actions that need to be taken to discourage this kind of behavior.”
Seven of the recent retractions were for corrigenda to what the notices said were now-retracted articles. But for six of those, the original paper has yet to be retracted, including two corrigenda for a 2023 paper, both of which addressed errors in figures.
An Elsevier spokesperson told us they are “unable to discuss any potential future retractions” but did confirm the retractions tied to the corrigenda “will be made in the coming days.”
Last week we reported on cleanup at another Elsevier journal for “[s]ystematic, coordinated, and widespread manipulation of the peer-review process” in special issues.
Ceramics International retracted one paper last year, for image reuse, and 18 in 2024, according to our database.
Most of the researchers who lost papers this year were affiliated with institutions in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, India and Saudi Arabia. Majid Niaz Akhtar, a composite materials researcher at the Islamia University of Bahawalpur in Pakistan, was an author on four of the retracted papers. He did not respond to our request for comment.
Bimler pointed to an instance in which authors were added after the paper was accepted, which can indicate authorship for sale. “In my working model of the papermill industry, the services offered by [the] largest paper mills include ’publication visibility enhancement’ as well as ’manuscript completion,’” he said. Fifteen of the retractions cited changes in authorship during the peer review process.
However, Bimler also noted some of the articles look like the authors’ own work. “The low editorial standards were not restricted to paper mills,” he said.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Facts Only
* Ceramics International has retracted 56 papers in 2025.
* Retractions began in July and include reasons such as image overlap, data integrity concerns, and suspicious authorship changes.
* Over 50 retractions were requested by an independent Publishing Ethics advisor.
* 43 retraction notices reference PubPeer comments.
* Mu Yang and David Bimler emailed the publisher, Elsevier, on April 23, 2025, flagging 80 papers.
* Seven retractions were for corrigenda; six of the original papers associated with those corrigenda remain published.
* 15 retractions cited changes in authorship during the peer review process.
* Ceramics International retracted one paper in 2023 and 18 in 2024.
* Affected researchers are primarily affiliated with institutions in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, India, and Saudi Arabia.
* Majid Niaz Akhtar of Islamia University of Bahawalpur is an author on four retracted papers.
* Rajendra Bordia is the co-editor-in-chief of Ceramics International.
* Mu Yang is the director of the Mouse Neurobehavior Core at Columbia University Medical Center.
Executive Summary
Ceramics International is currently undergoing a significant cleanup of its published record, having retracted 56 papers this year due to concerns over data integrity, image duplication, and irregular authorship changes. This surge in retractions follows an April 2025 alert from independent researchers Mu Yang and David Bimler, who flagged 80 suspicious papers to the publisher, Elsevier. While many of these cases exhibit hallmarks of "papermill" activity—where low-effort manuscripts are produced for sale—some evidence suggests a broader issue of low editorial standards affecting legitimate author work.
The cleanup process appears inconsistent, as several corrigenda have been retracted while their parent papers remain active. Most affected authors are based in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, India, and Saudi Arabia. While the co-editor-in-chief has initiated meetings with Elsevier to discourage this behavior, the scale of the current retractions compared to previous years indicates a systemic failure in the journal's prior vetting processes.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that independent "scientific sleuths" are acting as a necessary external immune system for an academic publishing model that has failed its own quality control. The reliance on PubPeer and external advisors suggests that the internal peer-review process at Ceramics International was either bypassed or insufficient to detect blatant duplications and "authorship for sale" schemes.
The pattern here is a systemic breakdown of the "trust but verify" model in global academia. The concentration of retracted papers among institutions in specific geographic regions may reflect the predatory targeting of these regions by papermills, or a localized pressure to publish that overrides integrity. However, the observation that some papers appear to be the authors' own work suggests the problem isn't just external fraud, but an internal editorial collapse.
The root cause is the "publish or perish" incentive structure, which creates a market for papermills to sell "visibility enhancement." When journals prioritize volume or special issues over rigorous auditing, they become conduits for noise rather than knowledge. This degrades the dignity of genuine researchers in those regions by associating their institutional affiliations with fraud.
If this narrative were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve "region-coding" fraud to imply that scientific misconduct is endemic to specific Global South nations to justify tighter Western control over academic accreditation. The content does not match this pattern; it focuses on the journal's editorial failure and the mechanics of papermills rather than making sweeping cultural generalizations.
Patterns detected: none
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the shift toward "special issues" in large publishing houses affect the rigor of the peer-review process?
2. If independent sleuths are the primary mechanism for detecting fraud, what structural changes must journals make to internalize this vigilance?
3. What are the professional consequences for researchers who are "bought into" papermill papers without their full knowledge of the fraud?