Review mills sum up a new category of reviewer misconduct that flies in the face of reviewer ethics and integrity. A pattern of generic, vague, and repeated affirmations (identical or very similar boilerplate phrasing) is noted in the analysis of 263 review reports, that was conducted in the article by M. Ángeles Oviedo-García, regardless of the scientific content of the papers under review, coupled with coercive citation (perhaps among the main reasons for such behavior), which when combined produce fake reviews.

Oviedo-García meticulously documented the evidence for review mill activity on PubPeer, and on 13 February 2024, MDPI's communications department wrote a report outlining how they planned to deal with the situation, noting "MDPI is committed to transparency and integrity in scholarly publishing. We will provide updates as the investigation progresses and appreciate your understanding and cooperation in addressing this matter."

A manual check on 18-20th July 2025, revealed that 46 articles from 84 had no action, 13 had a "Journal notice", stating that they were being looked at, two had the "Review Reports" tab deleted on the website, and the remaining 23 had a Correction. I have added information about Notices and Corrections to PubPeer.

Source https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2025/07/trouble-at-t-review-mill-how-mdpi-lets.html

Another high-profile case has interested scientists. Read now