Clarivate Acts on Concerns Raised by Recent Probe
Clarivate’s Web of Science Core Collection has placed multiple surgery-focused journals from the IJS Publishing Group on hold, pausing the indexing of new content while re-evaluating their compliance with quality standards. The decision, effective March 19, 2026, follows a detailed investigation published by Retraction Watch on March 12, 2026, that examined citation practices and content quality in the titles.
The affected journals include the International Journal of Surgery, which previously reported a 2022 impact factor of 15.3 and ranked second in its category, along with Annals of Medicine and Surgery, International Journal of Surgery: Oncology, International Journal of Surgery Protocols, International Journal of Surgery Case Reports, and International Journal of Surgery Open. These titles are now marked “on hold” in the Master Journal List, meaning new articles will not receive indexing until the review concludes.
Background on the International Journal of Surgery Portfolio
The IJS Publishing Group, founded in 2003 by U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, built a portfolio of open-access surgery journals. Wolters Kluwer acquired the group in 2022, though Agha continues in editorial roles across several titles. Prior to the acquisition, the journals had been published under Elsevier. The portfolio has grown significantly in recent years, attracting submissions through visibility in major indexes and relatively high impact factors.
Researchers in surgical fields often rely on these outlets for rapid publication of case reports, protocols, and original studies. The journals emphasize open access and have positioned themselves as accessible venues for global authors, including those in regions with limited access to traditional high-impact outlets.
Details of the Retraction Watch Investigation
The March 2026 Retraction Watch report highlighted practices that appeared designed to boost citation counts and impact factors. One key issue involved mandatory citation requirements for reporting guidelines in submissions to the International Journal of Surgery. These requirements reportedly inflated the journal’s metrics, making it more attractive to authors seeking high-visibility publication.
Additional concerns included connections to paper mills, irregular study registrations in Agha’s Research Registry, and individual papers flagged on PubPeer for issues such as impossible data or inadequate peer review. The investigation also noted a deeply flawed case report in one of the titles that later received an erratum.
Following the report, Wolters Kluwer adjusted some citation and registration policies in April 2026. However, experts noted that restoring full confidence in the journals’ metrics would require sustained, transparent corrective actions.
Clarivate’s Journal Evaluation and Hold Process
Clarivate maintains 24 quality criteria for journals in the Web of Science Core Collection. Journals undergo routine re-evaluation, and holds are applied when initial reviews identify valid concerns about content quality or editorial standards. A hold is explicitly described as a neutral review mechanism rather than a presumption of misconduct.
During the hold period, the journal remains listed in the Master Journal List but is clearly flagged. New content is not indexed, though previously indexed articles stay visible. Clarivate reports that approximately 85 percent of journals placed on hold ultimately face delisting after full re-evaluation.
The average duration of a hold is around six weeks, though complex cases involving publisher engagement can extend longer. Publishers are notified directly and given opportunities to demonstrate corrective measures.
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash
Publisher Response and Ongoing Collaboration
A Wolters Kluwer spokesperson stated that the company continues to collaborate closely with Clarivate on evaluating improvements across the journals. The publisher emphasized the importance of thorough processes to maintain standards.
Riaz Agha did not respond to requests for comment on the holds. The journals’ websites have not publicly noted the status change as of the latest reports.
Clarivate encourages publishers to investigate breaches proactively, correct the scholarly record through retractions where appropriate, and maintain transparency. Journals that demonstrate genuine commitment to integrity may receive more favorable outcomes, including potential continued coverage or reduced embargo periods if delisted.
Broader Context of Research Integrity Challenges in Publishing
The surgery journals case reflects wider pressures on the scholarly publishing system. Rapid growth in open-access mega-journals, combined with incentives tied to impact factors and publication volume, has created opportunities for questionable practices. Paper mills, citation cartels, and manipulated peer review have affected multiple fields.
Clarivate has incorporated AI-supported tools since 2023 to help prioritize journals for re-evaluation. The company stresses that retractions themselves are not penalized when they represent responsible correction of the record.
Similar holds have been applied to other titles in recent years, including certain mega-journals, underscoring that no publisher or journal size guarantees permanent indexing.
Implications for Researchers and the Surgical Community
Authors who have submitted or plan to submit to the affected journals face uncertainty about future visibility and citation tracking. Manuscripts already under review may experience delays in indexing even if accepted.
Institutions and funders that use Web of Science data for evaluations may adjust how they view publications in these titles during the review period. Early-career researchers and those in resource-limited settings, who often target accessible open-access outlets, could see shifts in submission patterns.
Surgeons and surgical researchers rely on timely dissemination of case reports and clinical findings. Delays or changes in indexing can affect how quickly new evidence enters systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.
Potential Outcomes and Next Steps
Clarivate will complete re-evaluations on a case-by-case basis. Journals that demonstrate sustained improvements in editorial processes and content quality may have the hold lifted, with backfilling of any missed content. Those that fall short face delisting, with a standard two-year embargo before resubmission is possible.
Stakeholders across the ecosystem—including researchers, librarians, and professional societies—can contribute by reporting concerns through established channels and supporting transparent peer review practices.
The episode highlights the value of independent investigative journalism in maintaining accountability within academic publishing.
Photo by Piron Guillaume on Unsplash
Looking Ahead for Scholarly Publishing Integrity
Clarivate’s approach emphasizes collaboration with publishers to safeguard the scholarly record. Initiatives such as United2Act bring together multiple parties to address systemic issues at scale.
Longer-term solutions include stronger editorial screening, better detection of paper-mill activity, and reforms to incentive structures that reward quantity over quality. Continued vigilance from databases, sleuths, and the research community remains essential.
Researchers seeking reliable outlets are advised to verify current indexing status directly through the Master Journal List and to prioritize journals with robust, transparent peer-review processes.