Federal Oversight Targets Scholarly Publishing: Antitrust, Censorship, and the Expanding Case for Research Fraud Liability

By Ryan James Jessup JD/MPA (Owner, Social Web Branding Publishing Consultants)

Guest Editor’s Note: Ryan James Jessup JD/MPA, owner of www.SocialWebBranding.com, explores how federal scrutiny of scholarly publishing is intensifying amid antitrust cases, censorship investigations, and concerns over fraud in federally funded research. He examines the collapse of Hindawi, mass retractions, and foreign influence risks that have exposed failures in publisher-run peer review systems. As legal pressure builds to hold publishers liable for compromised studies, Jessup argues that retractions increasingly signal editorial negligence. He concludes that while independent peer review certification is gaining traction as a market response, accountability in publicly funded research remains an open question. — AJB

The scholarly publishing industry, long criticized for monopolistic practices, faces intensifying legal scrutiny. As major publishers shift blame onto researchers for failures in peer review and research integrity, lawmakers and federal agencies are escalating antitrust litigation, censorship inquiries, and expanding financial and criminal liability for fraudulent federally funded research.

Legal scholars and regulators are now questioning whether publishers should bear financial responsibility for fraudulent research funded by taxpayers. Emerging legal precedents suggest publishers may soon face accountability for disseminating compromised studies.

Antitrust Action: Federal Scrutiny and the Hindawi Collapse

In Uddin v. Elsevier et al. (2024), six major academic publishers — Elsevier, John Wiley & Sons, Sage Publications, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, and Wolters Kluwer — are accused of colluding to suppress competition by fixing peer review prices at zero and restricting manuscript submissions. The lawsuit underscores concerns among the DOJ Antitrust Division and FTC, who previously scrutinized publisher mergers.

A critical illustration emerged following Wiley’s 2021 acquisition of Hindawi. Within two years, Hindawi was inundated with paper mills, manipulated peer reviews, and fraud, leading to thousands of retractions. The scale highlighted how unchecked consolidation can erode editorial oversight and facilitate widespread fraud.

The Emerging Case for Publisher Liability in Research Fraud

“Whether due to nonfeasance, editorial negligence, or outright fraud, most retractions indicate that a study did not meet even the most basic standards of academic scrutiny through peer review. Publishers claim that the value journals bring to the scholarly community is held in the integrity of peer review. But, every single retraction — 100% of them — represents a failure of that very same peer review system,” commented Mr. Christopher Marcum, Senior Statistician and Senior Scientist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States. Marcum continued, “According to Retraction Watch, in just 2024, a single publisher issued nearly 3,000 retractions. That’s just a single publisher in a single year and likely a significant undercount because of the largely passive and lengthy processes it takes to identify, investigate, and eventually act on issues once identified in a published article. It took the Lancet 12 years to retract the 1998 Wakefield paper, which continues to harm the public to this day. The publishers were never held to account for the preventable disease and death that article caused while claiming continued value of its (failed) peer review system.”

Under the False Claims Act (FCA), entities misusing federal funds face legal accountability. In United States ex rel. Thomas v. Duke University, Duke paid $112.5 million for falsified federally funded research. This principle could extend liability to publishers profiting from disseminating compromised federally funded studies.

Emerging legal scholarship, supported by precedents such as United States ex rel. Joshua Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc. (2017), suggests publishers profiting from fraudulent federally funded research without rigorous peer review safeguards could face FCA liability.

Retractions serve as litmus tests of publishers’ accountability. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) faced highprofile retractions, notably the 2001 Bezwoda breast cancer study, still erroneously cited without retraction acknowledgment. Publishers failing proactive retraction management risk undermining the integrity of scientific knowledge.

NY State Senators Demand Investigation into Censorship

In October 2024, New York senators John Liu, Toby Stavisky, and Iwen Chu called for an investigation into Springer Nature’s $2.7 million SUNY contract, accusing the publisher of censoring research to comply with Chinese government policies. Springer Nature allegedly blocked studies in China and pressured Taiwanese researchers to align with China’s political stance, raising concerns about academic freedom and foreign influence.

Federal agencies now closely scrutinize undisclosed foreign influence in research. Publishers found suppressing federally funded research or altering content under foreign censorship demands could face severe legal penalties and restrictions on government contracts.

These allegations are part of broader concerns about foreign influence in academic research. Federal agencies have been increasingly vigilant about undisclosed foreign involvement in research activities. Publishers and institutions found suppressing federally funded research or altering content under foreign censorship demands could face legal penalties and restrictions on government contracts. The Department of Justice has emphasized the importance of transparency and compliance with laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Third-Party Peer Review Certification as a Safeguard

Facing increased liability and fraud exposure, publishers are turning to independent peer review certification programs like COPE, STM Integrity Hub, Crossref, Reviewer Credits, and PeerReviewMe.org. These programs offer standardized professional alternatives, reducing fraud risks and liability exposure.

If regulatory scrutiny intensifies further, third-party certification could become essential to publishers’ continued authority to publish federally funded research.

Ultimately, as scholarly publishing navigates unprecedented scrutiny, the central question emerges: Should publishers continue benefiting financially from publicly funded research without bearing equal accountability for systemic failures in peer review, censorship, and research integrity?

References

Uddin v. Elsevier et al., No. 2:24-cv-07652 (C.D. Cal. 2024).

United States ex rel. Thomas v. Duke University, No. 1:17-cv276 (M.D.N.C. 2019).

United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Industries, Inc., 872 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 2017).

“New York Senate Inquiry into Springer Nature’s SUNY Contract,” New York Post.

“Federal Scrutiny of Research Fraud under the False Claims Act,” U.S. Department of Justice Press Release.

“Hindawi Fraud and Retraction Concerns,” Nature News

Christopher Marcum, LinkedIn Profile, https://www.linkedin. com/in/christopher-steven-marcum-15b88249/

“Springer Nature Retracted 2,923 Papers Last Year,” Retraction Watch, February 17, 2025, https://retractionwatch. com/2025/02/17/springer-nature-journal-retractions-2024/

“Corporate Lessons from Recent Foreign Influence Prosecutions,” Reuters, January 13, 2025, https://www.reuters. com/legal/legalindustry/corporate-lessons-recent-foreigninfluence-prosecutions-2025-01-13/.