Untitled

Open access publishing has made research more accessible than ever — but it has also created new vulnerabilities that most researchers don't see coming. At the center of nearly every major retraction event in recent years sits the same structure: the guest-edited special issue. Once considered a shortcut to visibility, these issues have quietly become one of the biggest risks in modern academic publishing, and understanding how to identify predatory journals operating through this loophole has become essential for every author.

What Is a Guest-Edited Special Issue?

A guest-edited special issue is a themed collection within a journal, overseen not by the journal's regular editorial board but by external guest editors invited for that specific topic. In theory, this brings in subject-matter experts and broadens a journal's reach. In practice, it has become a favorite entry point for paper mills and coordinated fraud networks exploiting the speed and lighter oversight that open access publishing models often allow.

Why Special Issues Are Attractive to Bad Actors

Guest editors often have less oversight than permanent editorial staff

Review timelines are frequently compressed to meet a publication deadline

Multiple guest editors can approve each other's submissions with minimal scrutiny

Volume-based publishing pressure incentivizes speed over rigor

The Scale of the Problem

Recent retraction waves make the pattern impossible to ignore. One ASTM International journal retracted 147 papers after an investigation found compromised peer review — nearly half traced back to just two guest-edited special issues on the same general topic, overseen by the same guest editors. In some years, retracted papers accounted for close to a quarter of that journal's entire output.

This isn't an isolated case. Elsevier's Heliyon is currently auditing its entire back catalog after finding citation manipulation and compromised review patterns across its portfolio. Springer Nature retracted nearly 2,900 papers in a single year. The Retraction Watch database has now logged more than

63,000 retractions overall, and guest-edited issues continue to appear as a recurring thread across cases.

Common Red Flags in a Compromised Special Issue

Unusually Fast Turnaround Times

Legitimate peer review takes time. When an entire special issue moves from submission to acceptance in a matter of days, across dozens of papers, that speed is rarely a sign of efficiency — it's a sign that meaningful review may not have happened at all.

Guest Editors With Overlapping Submissions

Watch for guest editors who are also frequent authors within the same issue, or who approve papers from close collaborators without independent second review.

Thematically Narrow, Volume-Heavy Issues

A special issue publishing an unusually high number of papers on a narrow subtopic, in a short window, often signals a paper mill operation rather than

genuine scholarly demand.

Citation Patterns That Loop Back on Themselves

Papers within the same special issue excessively citing one another — sometimes called citation stacking — is one of the clearest indicators used by publishers auditing suspicious issues today.

How Researchers Can Protect Their Work

Research the Guest Editors, Not Just the Journal

A journal's overall reputation doesn't guarantee that every special issue within it maintains the same standards. Check the guest editors' individual publication history and institutional affiliation independently.

Ask About the Review Process Directly

Before submitting to a special issue, ask explicitly how many independent reviewers will assess the manuscript, and what the realistic timeline looks like compared to the journal's standard track.

Treat Fast-Track Invitations With Extra Scrutiny

Unsolicited invitations promising rapid publication in a themed issue are exactly the pattern behind nearly every mass retraction event of the past two years, and one of the clearest ways to spot how to identify predatory journals before it's too late.

Final Thoughts