Report comment

This was a time-bomb that was long ticking. One time tested model which many journals use is that the peer review is decided by active scientist Editors. So, when an Editor looks at the names of reviewers suggested by the authors, he/she also is able to make an objected decision regarding whom to call for review. As is mostly true, the Editor might personally know the reviewers and his/her credentials. This of course, helps in making an informed decision. In case, the editor is not able to find the name of the suggested reviewers as author's themselves of similar articles in the area, it is very unlikely that they will be roped in for peer review.

Now, compare this with what happens when we are making the system automated. Even with very high managerial skills, it is not possible to judge the work of the names of reviewers suggested by the authors, if the Editor themselves are not scientists. Having a non-scientist helps because, they can do the work faster (Scientists have to work in their own labs and write papers themselves) and maybe its cheaper to hire them as one person might be able to handle several journals. But, see the side-effect. The Editors for these 5 articles certainly did not verify the credentials of the reviewers. Otherwise, how did they end up sending reviewing invitation letters to "fake" e-mail ids? Didn't they check the publication records in Scifinder/WebofKnowledge before this.

Finally, in my opinion, it is a greater fault of the peer review process and the handling editors. Of course, the authors are guilty of giving fake list of reviewers. But, why was this not detected by the journal? Also, PCCP, ChemComm, Nanoscale are pretty high impact journals. It is very unlikely that the Editors decided based on only one report. So, there might be two-three reports for each article. Did the Editors not seek reviewers independent of the list suggested by the authors? If the author suggested 5 potential reviewers and the Editors just uses them for peer review, where is the intellectual input of the Editor.