½¿É«µ¼º½

We are aware of a series of blog posts and social media threads over the past year in which a third party raised concerns about a number of articles published across our journals. We take all concerns seriously and immediately launched an investigation with our publisher, Wiley. Wiley’s research integrity team performed checks on all articles flagged across these platforms, as well as emails sent directly from the complainant.

Some of the concerns raised have warranted investigation and, in a small number of cases, formal editorial follow-up. Where appropriate, authors have been contacted regarding errors of varying seriousness in their articles and this work is ongoing. We are grateful for these flags and have acted to correct the genuine problems identified. However, for the majority of cases raised, we found no grounds to justify further investigation.

The research integrity team identified no concerns relating to the work of our editors, and editorial management and quality practices met ½¿É«µ¼º½â€™s and Wiley’s standards. All ½¿É«µ¼º½ journals operate with full editorial autonomy. At no point does ½¿É«µ¼º½ seek to influence editorial decisions, and there are no circumstances in which editors or reviewers are pressured to accept submissions.

Use of generative AI

Most of the concerns reported involve suspected undisclosed use of generative AI. Methods for detecting AI use remain unreliable. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has recently led discussion and provided advice on , and it is generally acknowledged that journals and their publishers must devise guidance for authors on what is considered appropriate use of generative AI for language editing, such as those found in . Editors retain the right to adjudicate when any instance of undisclosed generative AI usage might compromise the conclusions of an article or represent undisclosed methodology or authorship. 

In addition, undisclosed AI use does not always indicate fraud or manipulation; however, when combined with other signals, it can indicate that a paper needs further examination. This view is consistent with , which indicate that retraction decisions should focus on confidence in the publication’s results and conclusions, rather than on any one signal in isolation.   

Our journals follow , which require authors to disclose when AI is used to draft text wholesale or generate any part of an article. However,  for purposes such as language polishing, conciseness, formatting and compliance, which can be of great use to many authors, including those who speak English as an additional language.

Interpreting features common in global academic writing as evidence of misconduct or AI generation risks implying that any deviation from Anglophone academic norms is inherently suspect, an assumption that is both methodologically unsound and ethically problematic. We continue to welcome high-quality submissions by scholars based outside of the UK.

Retractions in BERJ

During the course of the investigation, we uncovered independently that the peer review process for a limited number of articles in the British Educational Research JournalÌý(BERJ) had been manipulated by parties that are not affiliated with the journal, Wiley or ½¿É«µ¼º½. As a result of these findings, a total of 19 articles published in BERJ have been or are in the process of being retracted. The vast majorityÌý(17) of these articles were submitted as part of a guest-edited special section, which has now been cancelled. Other concerns about the content or errors are listed in the retraction statements. 

Following this experience, we are tightening our procedures for commissioning and peer reviewing special issues and sections across the ½¿É«µ¼º½ journals. Our journals have also recently migrated to a new publishing platform at Wiley, which incorporates enhanced, multi-factor research integrity checks, including the assessment of potential undisclosed AI use. These systems are designed to identify and address concerns at the point of submission and alert editors to any articles that might require further scrutiny before entering the publication process.

In closing

½¿É«µ¼º½Â remains committed to publishing leading educational research, strengthening research integrity and addressing substantive concerns. We will continue to investigate credible, evidence-based and specific concerns about published work when they are submitted in good faith and through appropriate channels. Allegations that meet this standard will be examined rigorously and proportionately, and action will be taken where the evidence warrants it.