Cell Press, one of the world’s leading scientific publishers, has launched an investigation after prominent Chinese biologist Rao Yi accused the editor-in-chief of a top medical journal of soliciting bribes from mainland authors.

“Several important international academic journals have seen editors, and even editors-in-chief, soliciting and accepting bribes,” said Rao, a tenured chair professor at Peking University who stepped down as president of Capital Medical University last year, in a social media post last Tuesday. “Chinese scientists should collectively boycott such editors,” he added.

Rao’s post singled out Steve Mao, the Chinese-born editor-in-chief of Cancer Cell – a peer-reviewed medical journal published by Cell Press – in the bribery allegation.

“Organisations and various assessment bodies in China should be aware that many people believe Steve Mao has serious issues,” Rao said.

According to publicly available information, Mao graduated from Peking University in 2002 and later obtained a PhD from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre.

Mao undertook postdoctoral research at Cold Spring Harbor and Harvard University before entering the academic publishing industry.

He has served as editor-in-chief of Cancer Cell since 2020 and been director of editorial and strategic initiatives for China and the Asia-Pacific region at Cell Press since August last year. The South China Morning Post reached out to Mao seeking comment on the matter.

Last Friday evening, Cell Press announced on one of its official social media platforms that it had “initiated the relevant procedures and commissioned an external, independent third party to conduct a comprehensive investigation”.

“While the investigation is ongoing, we will not be making any further comment on this matter,” the publisher stated.

Separately, a spokesperson for the publisher told the mainland magazine China Newsweek that Cell Press took the integrity of its editorial process very seriously.

The publisher was reviewing the matter in accordance with established procedures and contacting Rao to request any supporting evidence he might have, the spokesperson said.

According to mainland media reports, Mao was originally scheduled to attend an academic conference co-hosted by Cell Press and Westlake University in early November but had recently been replaced by a colleague.

Rao alleged the matter was not an isolated instance, saying “a considerable number of journals and individuals are implicated”.

In a social media post the day before he mentioned Mao, Rao said he had heard from Chinese scientists that “some editors at international academic journals demand personal financial payments in exchange for helping Chinese researchers publish their papers”.

He broadly referred to a case in which he claimed a clinician had “bribed” an editor to secure publication in a journal.

According to a source whom Rao said had disclosed the matter to him, the journal editor in question gave the clinician submitting the manuscript a quote: “An initial payment of 2 million yuan (US$299,000), with more [fees] potentially required later.”

According to the post, Rao sent an email to the accused editor, writing: “Multiple sources have mentioned you as an example of an editor who has requested personal payment for publishing with journals you have served as an editor.”Rao said the editor in question had rejected the allegations, dismissing them as “completely false and baseless”.

“This is completely false and baseless. I demand you immediately retract this false statement. I have preserved all evidence and reserve all rights. I will not engage in further debate here,” the editor said in reply, according to Rao’s post.

The SCMP could not independently verify Rao’s claims and reached out to Rao seeking further details regarding the allegations.

According to a veteran Chinese professional in the international academic publishing sector, spending hundreds of thousands or even millions of yuan to open a possibility of securing publication was a “tacitly understood” phenomenon, particularly in top-tier medical journals.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the matter, the insider explained that this practice served to increase the probability of publication.

For instance, a direct submission was highly likely to be rejected outright in the first round. However, once an internal relationship was established, journal editors might grant the author more opportunities and provide specific guidance for revisions.

“I have heard of some journals already disciplining certain editors internally over such transactions, but these incidents mostly just circulate within the circle,” he added, without providing details of any confirmed cases of the practice.

As to why authors would be willing to spend massive sums to bribe journals, the industry insider said it was primarily because the incentives and rewards associated with prestigious publications in China “are too high”.

“It is essentially an investment,” he said, noting that once a paper was published in a top journal, “all sorts of academic titles, resources and research grants follow”.

A growing number of professionals in the scientific community are dedicating themselves to monitoring and exposing academic misconduct in China, an effort that has already prompted government action in some cases.

In recent years, Geng Hongwei, a high-profile blogger and PhD dropout better known as ‘Student Geng’, has emerged as China’s most prominent online whistle-blower for academic misconduct.

In late August, four mainland academics lost their posts at leading universities and came under official investigation after Geng flagged their research for misconduct.