Ghana’s academic credibility is once again under the microscope following explosive revelations that multiple research papers authored by Ghanaian academics have been retracted from international journals for violations ranging from compromised peer review to citation manipulation. The scandal comes at a time when public confidence in the country’s intellectual elite is already under intense pressure – thanks to a parallel crisis: the growing trend of individuals parading fake academic titles and credentials, a phenomenon that has generated widespread public outrage and condemnation.
The retracted articles – initially published in peer-reviewed journals and indexed by global research libraries of institutions like MIT, Oxford, and Cambridge – are now marked as compromised, casting a dark cloud over Ghana’s academic integrity.
The retractions were issued by Springer Nature, one of the world’s most reputable and influential academic publishers. According to the publisher, the articles were pulled due to serious concerns, including compromised peer review processes, irrelevant or inappropriate citations, nonstandard language, and content that did not fit the scope of the journal. Springer Nature emphasized that these irregularities undermined confidence in the results and conclusions of the affected articles.
The affected institutions include:
- Ghana Communication Technology University (GCTU)
- Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
- University of Mines and Technology (UMaT)
- Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED)
- Tamale Technical University
- S.D. Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies
The authors listed on the retracted papers are affiliated with the above institutions, along with at least one foreign university.
Despite the gravity of the accusations, the retraction notices fail to explain who compromised the peer review process. Was it a manipulation by the authors? A failure by the journal editors? Or both? This ambiguity is troubling – especially given that peer review is the cornerstone of academic publishing. I intend to seek further clarification from the publisher to clear any lingering ambiguities.
Compounding the concern is the silence from most of the co-authors. Except for the corresponding author, almost all others failed to respond to the publisher’s queries, a silence some may interpret as tacit acceptance of the allegations. Others suggest it may point to a broader issue: a lack of communication, coordination, or understanding of international publishing standards among co-authors. It could also be argued that the response by the corresponding author, who doubles as the first author, may suffice.
The corresponding author of all the retracted papers has broken his silence beyond his response to the journal – strongly rejecting all allegations and suggesting a broader agenda behind the retractions. In a direct communication to me during this investigation after sending him a request for comments, the author stated:
“Good day. Authors completely disagree with the issues as the basis for the retractions. Remember ESPR retracted close to 1000 articles last year just because of what they termed common mistakes. Please they are currently blacklisted in the Web of Science core collection of journals and have their ISSN number for prints ceased. Additionally, they were among the 17 journals omitted from the 2024 Clarivate impact factors. It is a deliberate attempt to tarnish the highly built reputation of authors and we are in a legal process with them. In Ghana, an individual who had been identified intended to add our pics to tarnish the image of authors and we have taken a litigation against them. Be careful, any publications made on this issue will be subjected to legal proceedings. Take note.”
That said, the repeated appearance of the corresponding author’s name across several of the retracted papers raises significant concerns about his academic credibility. Whether he played a central or peripheral role in the publication process, the reputational damage is undeniable – and by extension, so too is the reputational damage to his institution. It is however important to stress that the author has at all times categorically denied the allegations and disagreed with the decision of the publisher.
Nonetheless, the journals equally have questions to answer, as they fail to explain the role of their editors in this melee. For example, some retractions cite the papers being “out of scope” – a judgment that should have been made before publication. That these articles made it to print at all underlines systemic editorial failures within even the most respected publishing houses, including Springer Nature. Notably also, it appears the reasons for the retractions rhythm across the board for all the papers retracted, suggesting the retraction may be a mere formality rather than a painstaking process. On question of opacity by journals during retractions, the full investigative reports, article by article, should be published rather than issuing vague and general retraction notes.
Importantly, none of the retraction notes accuse the authors of data fabrication or use of AI-generated content. Allegations of this kind, often highlighted in academic misconduct cases, are notably absent. It can be argued that platforms like Retraction Watch may have sensationalized the issue beyond what the retraction notes substantiate. This is because its search portal attributes serious allegations to the authors which are not found in the retractions notes of the publishers, raising issues of libel against the authors.
For Ghanaian universities, the fallout is serious and far-reaching. Institutions such as KNUST and UMaT, which have worked for years to gain global research visibility, now find themselves entangled in an international academic integrity scandal. For newer institutions like AAMUSTED and S.D. Dombo University, this controversy could stall their efforts to build a trustworthy research footprint. The vague retractions by the publisher may discourage new academics from publishing, as they make publishers’ requirements unclear.
These developments come against the backdrop of Ghana’s ongoing battle with the spread of fake academic credentials and unearned titles. From honorary degrees presented as earned doctorates to public figures using inflated academic titles, the country has seen a disturbing erosion of trust in its academic ecosystem. The Springer Nature retractions now appear as a mirror reflecting this broader crisis, even though the retractions themselves are concerning in the manner and way they were done.
As the scandal unfolds, calls are growing for the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission (GTEC) to intervene. GTEC must urgently initiate an investigation into the research practices of the universities involved, introduce enforceable publication ethics policies, and strengthen the academic oversight framework across the country’s tertiary institutions.
The broader issue of the publish or perish rule may have to be relooked at – as they force academics who depend on publications for promotion to rush into publications which may later be retracted, regardless of the root cause. The woes of Ghanaian researchers is further deepened by the lack of funds and resources, while at the same time being under pressure to publish. It looks a double whammy – which may be at the taproot of academic misconduct.
It’s time for both authors and publishers to reform; silence is no longer an option. Springer Nature has made its judgment. Ghana must now make its own.
- President Commissions 36.5 Million Dollars Hospital In The Tain District
- You Will Not Go Free For Killing An Hard Working MP – Akufo-Addo To MP’s Killer
- I Will Lead You To Victory – Ato Forson Assures NDC Supporters
Visit Our Social Media for More
About Author
