· Nov 2, 2026
Retraction Watch: Computing journal retracts 13 papers, including four from past EIC
Markdown · JSON · Original source
reports that Computers in Biology and Medicine retracted 13 papers published from 2019 to 2023, including four coauthored by Huiling Chen, the journal’s coeditor-in-chief from 2021 to 2024. The October 15 notices cite suspicious authorship changes, irrelevant citations and self-plagiarism; in 10 cases, they say an independent Publishing Ethics advisor requested retraction. Chen disputes the “basis and proportionality” of the decisions, while acknowledging that some references were weakly relevant, redundant or unnecessary, and that explaining authorship changes did not amount to obtaining journal approval. The report also notes that three notices say reviewers requested irrelevant references. Escape Meridian interpretation: the report presents a tension over responsibility. Chen says reviewers sought added context, while also saying authors remained responsible for the references they included. The notices identify concerns about authorship and citations, while Chen challenges whether retraction was proportionate. Elsevier declined to comment, including on whether reviewers were banned or editorial processes changed.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
· Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 2, 2026 (2026-11-02T17:47:08+00:00).
Date basis: Date stated by the publisher.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T17:51:07.623Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T21:46:53.257Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The report does not establish whether Elsevier or the journal later changed its editorial process or took action against reviewers; Elsevier declined to comment on those matters. The report includes Chen’s account and the retraction notices, but the other named coauthors did not respond to requests for comment or could not be reached.
Open question
Did Elsevier or the journal make any changes to the editorial process or take action against reviewers after these retractions?
Source-stated
Retraction Watch reports that Computers in Biology and Medicine retracted 13 papers published between 2019 and 2023, including four coauthored by former coeditor-in-chief Huiling Chen.
An Elsevier journal on computer applications in biomedicine has retracted 13 papers — including four by a former editor-in-chief
Source-stated
The notices cited authorship changes, irrelevant citations, and self-plagiarism; in 10 cases they said an independent Publishing Ethics advisor requested retraction.
The October 15 retraction notices list suspicious changes in authorship, irrelevant citations to the work of authors and peer reviewers and self-plagiarism as reasons for retraction.
Source-stated
Chen objected to the basis and proportionality of the retractions, but acknowledged weaknesses in some citations and that explaining authorship changes was not the same as receiving journal approval.
“Providing an explanation is not the same as obtaining approval, and I recognize that distinction,” he said.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The report presents a tension over responsibility: Chen says reviewers asked for more context, while acknowledging that authors remained responsible for selecting necessary and accurately placed references.
The request “does not relieve the authors of responsibility for deciding which references were necessary and accurately placed,” he said.
Source-stated
Three notices said reviewers had requested irrelevant references, and Elsevier declined to comment on whether reviewers were banned or editorial processes changed.
A representative from Elsevier declined to comment on the matter, including whether the journal banned peer reviewers or made any changes to the editorial process.
Source and contributor context
Retraction Watch · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Retraction Watch
Retraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 841436b4-a76e-4751-83d8-a80661667cdc.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: abf70fad40d2bd4a1b85f02869fc97b315fbfcb0dd8466d5d2b51c0d7baeb42c. Source text hash: 893510858fa3cca2a91936360ec3d9aec9ed4a047e1eb8b73193c56d7560843b.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z
Retraction Watch: Computing journal retracts 13 papers, including four from past EIC
reports that Computers in Biology and Medicine retracted 13 papers published from 2019 to 2023, including four coauthored by Huiling Chen, the journal’s coeditor-in-chief from 2021 to 2024. The October 15 notices cite suspicious authorship changes, irrelevant citations and self-plagiarism; in 10 cases, they say an independent Publishing Ethics advisor requested retraction. Chen disputes the “basis and proportionality” of the decisions, while acknowledging that some references were weakly relevant, redundant or unnecessary, and that explaining authorship changes did not amount to obtaining journal approval. The report also notes that three notices say reviewers requested irrelevant references. Escape Meridian interpretation: the report presents a tension over responsibility. Chen says reviewers sought added context, while also saying authors remained responsible for the references they included. The notices identify concerns about authorship and citations, while Chen challenges whether retraction was proportionate. Elsevier declined to comment, including on whether reviewers were banned or editorial processes changed.
Original source
· Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 2, 2026 (2026-11-02T17:47:08+00:00).
Date basis: Date stated by the publisher.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z. First observed: 2026-11-02T17:51:07.623Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-02T21:46:53.257Z.
Limits
The report does not establish whether Elsevier or the journal later changed its editorial process or took action against reviewers; Elsevier declined to comment on those matters. The report includes Chen’s account and the retraction notices, but the other named coauthors did not respond to requests for comment or could not be reached.
Open question
Did Elsevier or the journal make any changes to the editorial process or take action against reviewers after these retractions?
Source-stated
Retraction Watch reports that Computers in Biology and Medicine retracted 13 papers published between 2019 and 2023, including four coauthored by former coeditor-in-chief Huiling Chen.
An Elsevier journal on computer applications in biomedicine has retracted 13 papers — including four by a former editor-in-chief
Source-stated
The notices cited authorship changes, irrelevant citations, and self-plagiarism; in 10 cases they said an independent Publishing Ethics advisor requested retraction.
The October 15 retraction notices list suspicious changes in authorship, irrelevant citations to the work of authors and peer reviewers and self-plagiarism as reasons for retraction.
Source-stated
Chen objected to the basis and proportionality of the retractions, but acknowledged weaknesses in some citations and that explaining authorship changes was not the same as receiving journal approval.
“Providing an explanation is not the same as obtaining approval, and I recognize that distinction,” he said.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The report presents a tension over responsibility: Chen says reviewers asked for more context, while acknowledging that authors remained responsible for selecting necessary and accurately placed references.
The request “does not relieve the authors of responsibility for deciding which references were necessary and accurately placed,” he said.
Source-stated
Three notices said reviewers had requested irrelevant references, and Elsevier declined to comment on whether reviewers were banned or editorial processes changed.
A representative from Elsevier declined to comment on the matter, including whether the journal banned peer reviewers or made any changes to the editorial process.
Source and contributor context
Retraction Watch · Publisher
The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred.
Source media
Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Retraction Watch
Retraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 841436b4-a76e-4751-83d8-a80661667cdc.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: passed by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: abf70fad40d2bd4a1b85f02869fc97b315fbfcb0dd8466d5d2b51c0d7baeb42c. Source text hash: 893510858fa3cca2a91936360ec3d9aec9ed4a047e1eb8b73193c56d7560843b.
passed · 2026-11-10T10:09:05.759Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 841436b4-a76e-4751-83d8-a80661667cdc
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the report to Retraction Watch. It keeps the retraction reasons attributed to the notices and the objections and admissions attributed to Chen. Elsevier's refusal to comment is correctly attributed to the company.
“I do not dispute that citation and authorship concerns can be serious and require an appropriate response,” Chen told Retraction Watch.
summary — pass: The reading names the actors (the journal, Chen, the reviewers and Elsevier) and the retraction reasons, and explains Chen's role. It keeps Chen's partial dispute without flattening it. The title's EIC abbreviation comes from the source and is explained in the body as coeditor-in-chief. The question names a real unresolved issue, since Elsevier declined to comment.
But Chen said he took issue with “the basis and proportionality of retraction in these cases.”
date — pass: The originalPublished value, 2026-11-02, matches the publisher page and the article URL date. The October 15 date for the notices is accurately reported.
The October 15 retraction notices list suspicious changes in authorship
support — pass: Each claim matches the source, including the 13 papers, the 2019 to 2023 publication span, the four Chen papers, and the 10 advisor-requested retractions. The three notices about reviewers requesting references and Chen's admissions are also supported. The labeled interpretation stays close to Chen's own words. The limitations are supported by the coauthors' nonresponse and Elsevier's refusal to comment.
Three of the retraction notices in Computers in Biology and Medicine state the investigation found “the authors were requested by two of the reviewers to insert irrelevant references during the peer-review process.”
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original Retraction Watch article. This is the most direct way for readers to access the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
Retraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Explore Retraction WatchRetraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Explore Retraction WatchRetraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Explore Retraction WatchRetraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Explore Retraction WatchRetraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases.
Explore Retraction Watch