Ceramics journal pulls dozens of papers flagged for integrity concerns

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].