The Trojan Horse of Special Issues: Why Elsevier’s 120-Paper Purge is Just the Tip of a Commercial Iceberg

## The Myth of the "Rogue Guest Editor"

Stop pretending that the mass retraction of 120 papers by the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (IJBM) is a surprising lapse in oversight. It isn’t a lapse; it’s the logical conclusion of a business model that prioritizes volume over veracity. The narrative being pushed by mega-publishers, that they are the victims of "systematic manipulation" by shadowy external actors, is a convenient fiction.

The Special Issue has turned into a classic Trojan Horse for the industry. By letting unverified guest editors run the show, big journals essentially rented out their prestige to the highest bidder. They built a high-end facade for a paper mill pipeline. When a journal like IJBM doubles its output from 5,000 to 10,000 papers in twelve months, the red flags are not just visible. They are screaming.

## The Commercial Incentive for Blindness

To understand why this rot persists despite the clear risk to reputation, you have to follow the money. Publishing has moved from a curated world to a high-speed factory floor. Retraction Watch noted that volume spiked right when the manipulation took hold. This is no accident. It is the business plan.

Every published paper is a revenue event, whether through APCs (Article Processing Charges) or institutional subscription valuations based on "impact" and volume. The "Guest Editor" system allows a journal to scale its production without scaling its internal costs. It is the gig economy applied to science: all of the profit, none of the liability. When Elsevier claims they are "investing more than ever" in integrity, they are describing a cleanup crew after they let the toxic waste dump overflow for three years.

### The Data Skeptic’s Reality Check

Just look at the numbers. We see figures like Junkai Qin, someone whose entire presence in the field exists only through these retracted papers, infiltrating top journals. The talk about image duplication or authorship issues is a side show. The big story is the death of the gatekeeper. If you double your output in two years, it is impossible for real reviewers to keep up. The system isn't being hacked. This is just what happens when growth is the only goal.

If a journal can double its output in 24 months, it is physically impossible for the existing pool of qualified reviewers to have vetted that work. The "peer review manipulation" isn't a hack of the system; it is the system when the system demands infinite growth. We are witnessing the devaluation of the scholarly record in real-time, where the currency of a "peer-reviewed publication" is being hyper-inflated into worthlessness.

## The Death of the "Trust, but Verify" Era

For too long, academics relied on a handshake and mutual trust. That world is dead. It died the moment science became a multi-billion dollar numbers game. We cannot fix this with software or better checklists. Those are just band-aids on a deep wound. The whole structure needs to change.

To restore integrity, we must demand radical structural reforms:

Eliminate Anonymous Guest Editing: Any special issue must be co-signed and audited by a permanent, salaried editorial board member who carries personal professional liability for the content.

Volume Caps: Journals should be restricted from increasing their annual publication volume by more than 10% without a mandatory independent ethics audit.

The End of the APC Profit Loop: We must decouple the act of publication from the payment of fees. As long as publishers profit from the quantity of science, they will always be incentivized to ignore the quality of the peer review.

If we keep treating these retractions as one-off errors instead of a terminal disease, we are losing more than 120 papers. We are losing the proof that science actually works.