1 The retractions came only a few months after BioMed Central.

Having authors suggest the best reviewers may therefore seem like a good idea. In the aftermath of the recent scandals involving fake peer reviewers, many journals are determined to carefully turn off the reviewer-suggestion option on the manuscript-submission systems. But that move might not be enough, because the publisher Hindawi found out this past spring. Although Hindawi doesn’t allow authors suggest reviewers because of their manuscripts, it decided to examine the peer-review records for manuscripts submitted in 2013 and 2014 for possible fraud. The peer-review procedure found in Hindawi’s journals depends primarily on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are responsible for supervising the review of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers selected by the guest editors weren’t subject to any kind of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the procedure in much the same way that authors or third-party agencies have done somewhere else: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses that they submitted positive reviews endorsing publication.Conversely, gay and bisexual women were found to be half mainly because more likely to develop non-melanoma pores and skin cancer as straight women, although no difference was seen in terms of melanoma risk. What might take into account the developments? Mansh pointed to previous studies that have focused on young white women, among whom the main motivators appear to be a desire to enhance appearance and appearance youthful. It’s a thing that needs to be particularly studied, but we assume it’s probably an identical circumstance among gay and bisexual males, he said. Meanwhile, Aaron Blashill, writer of an editorial that accompanied the scholarly study, described the existing effort mainly because both novel and highly significant.