An Analysis of the Retracted Article by Rabak and Lan (2023): A
Challenge for Peer Review and Scientific Integrity
by Walter R. Schumm
 
An article, allegedly by Rabak and Lan (2023), was retracted after its authors confessed to its research as fabricated (Rabak & Lan, 2024). Possibly the authors meant to create a “win, win” catch-22 trap situation where if the fabricated paper was accepted, it would seem to discredit a journal in which Sullins (2015) had published a controversial article. But if it was rejected, the authors could have claimed the journal was biased against papers with LGBT topics, which might also seem to discredit the journal and Sullins (2015).
 
Notably, the editor and reviewers for Sullins (2015) were not the same as those for Rabak and Lan (2023), limiting whatever point was at issue. Furthermore, numerous top-tier journals have published articles later retracted, negating the idea that a journal is “fake” just because one of its articles is later retracted or had included fabricated data or results.
 
 
Rabak and Lan (2023) survived peer review in part because a second round of peer review was avoided, possibly because the authors–and thus the editor–had pleaded for an extremely rapid review (three days). However, superficial errors may only be typographical and can be corrected and may not mean an article has been faked.
 
Most editors and reviewers assume that submitted papers are legitimate because of the serious nature of fabrication and subsequent adverse consequences for scholars if detected. At the same time, there are statistical tests available for deeper testing of research that can detect fabrication, tests that did indicate that Rabak and Lan (2023) was a fabrication. Since Rabak and Lan (2024) have indicated that they had wanted to discredit Sullins (2015), a further discussion of the merits and limitations of Sullins (2015) is included. Implications for journal editors and peer reviewers are discussed, as well as for graduate education in research methodology and ethics.