Dear Andrea Mattia Marcelli Good and interesting point. I would like to add: what about those who have a significant number of retractions ‘behind their name’?

I see in Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com and places like PubPeer https://pubpeer.com recurring names. For a long time, I wonder how it is possible that these fraudsters (in most cases we deal with people involved in paper mill scams, plagiarised papers, AI/fabricated data etc.) can continue publishing all over the place.

Not sure whether a public “Hall of Shame” is desirable and/or works. I guess some kind of blacklist that journals can consult might be a good way to take extra care when a suspicious name pops up.

Big question here is of course who should take such an initiative?

Best regards.

Thank you for contributing!

In fact, I don't believe a wall of shame would do the trick. We saw it with Beall's list. It started fine and it ended up listing a lot of emerging "World South" publishers. But the aim was ethically sound.

A compounded problem, for me, which adds on top of the former, is that in my country journals that are ranked "A" by the national agency are strategic towards the achievement of thresholds of publication. These, in turn, are the preliminary requirement to obtain "habilitation". Without "habilitation", one cannot be tenured.

This means that such journals are specifically targeted by local Authors, with a career within the national borders.

However, occasionally we witness the following:

[1] the Author is not a full-fledged usurper but a consolidated recycler

[2] somehow the Author manages to publish left and right

[3] checks are not performed / peer reviewers do not raise issues

[4] during her publication spree, the author runs into my journal

[5] I perform the similarity check *before* even considering the application (so, we perform checks "at a loss")

[6] I discover plagiarism

[7] desk rejection occurs

[8] the Author still runs for habilitation

[9] the committee awards this person with the qualification, no issue raised

[10] once obtained, this person gets tenured

Meanwhile my collaborators "spit blood" (metaphorically speaking) to earn a fixed-term contract.

Same goes for theses in Italy. Just because you found plagiarism and notified the affected university, it is not guaranteed the person will be stripped off of their degree or made to resumbi. So why even check at this stage? I am disheartened.

And we cannot play vigilante either. Or should we? I am conflicted.

So, here's a testimony I collected from colleague editors (same country, field of education studies).

1. Special issue connected to a selective workshop

2. But the journal has an independent peer review process... so workshop participants are submitting anew -- expanded papers

3. Submission xxx shows 62% plagiarism

4. Mostly recycling from fully copyrighted or CC BY ND NC

5. Desk rejection occurs

6. The managing editor notifies the guest editors (five chair professors)

7. The guest editors try to appeal on behalf of the plagiarist, asking if she can re-submit a sanitized version and claiming they consider the editorial rejection "harsh" because "those paragraphs could have been written in solitude" (whatever this sentence means).

8. The regular editor says something like: "she can resubmit as long as there is no plagiarism and copyright violation, but don't you feel duped by this person? I mean, she took the spot of someone who could have submitted original work--and, anyway, how original will this contribution be considering 60% of it was plagiarised? Does not look like a distraction".

It appears these people were afraid of "looking bad" if they sanctioned plagiarism.

No comment.

The University of Maryland launched an investigation last September into its College Park president after accusations that cut to the heart of academic integrity: plagiarism.

Ten months later, the probe into the research work of President Darryll Pines is still ongoing, causing consternation on the campus. The university’s own internal documents show that most of these reviews should take far less time.

Some faculty members wonder why it has extended so long...

https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/education/higher-education/university-of-maryland-darryll-pines-plagiarism-AHZESFHKN5HA5DLTEF32CER46E/

This is another example of plagiarism without consequences.

Minister Lee Jin-suk apologizes for plagiarism accusations, defends position at hearing

Lee Jin-sook, the candidate for Minister of Education, apologized regarding allegations of plagiarism in papers written during her time as a professor and controversies over her children's early study abroad, while refusing to resign...

https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-society/2025/07/16/YSG6SQHYRFA3BA55YPILKUSNL4/

Sounds like "they can continue working no matter being frauds" is, in fact, a problem of due diligence on behalf of private employers. I can totally see a public agency, such as the one who undertakes the assessment of Departments in my country, introducing a criterion that "zeroes" a Department rating in case a paper is retracted. However, in countries that are heavily dominated by the private sector, it appears the only leverage is "loss of reputation" and the only medicine is "due diligence" before hiring.

Another case from the publication scene:

• Seven full Professors and the head of a Foundation organise a seminar in memoriam of a deceased scientist
• They receive 40 submissions in response to the call and select 10. The Supervisor of one of the excluded PhD candidates starts making phone calls to the organizers and insists that the exclusion of her protegée is a direct offense to her expertise.
• The full Professors (old generation people) yield and accept this extra individual into the seminar.

Fast forward a couple of months:

• These old professors contact an academic journal to publish the seminar papers in a special issue
• The journal agrees to the creation of a special issue, but insist that results of the call cannot be tied to a selection that was performed before even contacting the Editorial board. Brief, all submissions will undergo regular peer review
• Most submissions pass the check -- some with request for major changes, some with minors, a couple of submissions are considered "outstanding"
• One submission receives mixed reviews and the Editorial team, after joint consultation with the guest editors, decides to issue a "major changes requested call"
• Plot twist: it turns out to be the same submission that was initially rejected at the seminar, until the chronie stirred up all the issues...
• Informed of "major changes requested" by the Author, her Supervisor (the chronie, who is not even a co-author of the paper) makes a boisterous come-back making phone calls left and right about "her article having been rejected as a form of vengeance" and sending private WhatsApp messages to the editorial team calling them "miserable" and saying "I know better than the anonymous referees". Note: the article was never rejected, but apparently even "major changes" is now being taken personally.

Conclusion: now the editorial team is working its way to assess the level of manipulation and malpractice as per COPE Guidelines.

Bottom line is: do we really pay these people 5 grands a month to deal on a daily basis with fragile ego?