Dead Researcher Souls: an Analysis of Editorial Boards of Russian Journal

In some respects, the war has in no way hindered the presence of Russian science in the international academic community. For example, as of early 2026, the scientometric database Scopus owned by the Dutch publisher Elsevier indexed about 800 Russian journals; WoS indexed up to 500; and the international (German–British) publisher Springer Nature publishes more than 200 Russian journals.

During the war, Scopus has not only failed to reduce the number of Russian journals it indexes but has instead expanded it, adding several dozen new titles. Moreover, the inclusion of new Russian journals has not stopped. For example, in December 2025, Scopus accepted Lomonosov Psychology Journal for indexing; the journal is published by Lomonosov Moscow State University. This is the same university that not only signed the disgraceful rectors’ letter in support of the war but also initiated it, as MSU Rector Sadovnichy heads the Union of [Russian] Rectors.

Moreover, as noted in the publication Secret Friends of Russian (Propaganda) Science, the editorial boards of many Russian journals include respected foreign scholars (although not all of them are aware of this). To investigate this issue, we selected 140 Russian journals indexed in Scopus whose editorial boards included two or more foreign members. We then created a database of foreign editorial board members of these journals (709 individuals in total) and sent them letters regarding their participation on the journals’ editorial boards.

We received 148 responses (about 20% of those contacted). The results are striking: about 100 of these 148 scholars were in fact not performing any editorial duties. Another interesting finding was the systematic use of “dead souls” (that is, the names of scholars who have already died or retired and withdrawn from academic activity) by Russian journals. Overall, the share of falsification in the international component of Russian journals’ editorial boards reaches 70%. As a result of our correspondence, 89 scholars reported that they plan to leave editorial boards or have already submitted resignation letters.

In 2025, we conducted a second round of the campaign. For this stage, we selected 214 other Russian academic journals indexed in the Scopus scientometric database. The selection criteria were the presence of two or more international members on the journals’ editorial boards and the existence of a functioning journal website.

We compiled a database of international editorial board members of these journals comprising 1,874 individuals. Each of them (except for the 36 who were found to be deceased during the study) received an official letter from us asking whether they were a current member of the editorial board of the specified Russian journal. In addition, our letters contained information about:

• instances of propaganda published by the journal, including content related to the annexation of Ukrainian territories (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions).
• direct support by the journal’s publisher or even its editor-in-chief for Russian aggression and the war against Ukraine evidenced by the so-called “rectors’ letter” supporting the actions of the Russian authorities (Russian Union of Rectors, 2022).
• affiliations of the editor-in-chief and/or other editorial board members with Russian organizations that actively support Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and are subject to international sanctions.

As a result of the mailing campaign, we received 326 responses, representing 17.4% of the sample. The geography of inquiries spanned all continents (Figure 1), with the largest numbers sent to the United States (339), Germany (192), Italy (131), the United Kingdom (118), and France (93). These five countries accounted for more than 46.5% of the entire sample. Scholars from Africa, Asia, and South America were less represented on Russian journal editorial boards. There were 25 Ukrainian scholars on Russian editorial boards.

During the study, we found that 36 individuals (about 2% of the sample) had retired (either they reported this in response to our letters or we found confirmation in open sources). However, Russian journal websites still list them as current editorial board members.

The 326 responses can be grouped into several categories (Figure 2).

The responses show that 114 individuals (34.9% of the sample) plan to remain on Russian journal editorial boards. Reasons cited included personal connections, particularly friendly relationships with the editor-in-chief, as well as professional interest in specific fields or research topics.

Thirty-one percent of respondents (102 individuals) said they plan to leave the journal in the near future. Of these, 57% stated that they had not participated in the journal’s activities, had not received updates or invitations to review manuscripts, in other words, they had been “idle” board members. Some respondents said they had completely forgotten about their involvement in these journals, while others said they did not think their participation was meaningful.

We also found that some Russian journals had included fake members on their editorial boards. Specifically, 45 respondents reported that they had never consented to join the editorial boards of such journals and had never even heard of them. Of these, 17 plan to write to the journals immediately, demanding that their names be removed (at least four had already been removed by the time this article was written in late January 2026).

A small share of respondents (11%) believed they were no longer members of the respective editorial boards. Ukrainian scholars in particular were confident that their names had been automatically removed after the full-scale invasion and did not intend to contact Russian journals themselves. Others in this group believed their membership had ended many years ago, as they had long had no contact with the journals.

Some scholars reported that in the past—particularly immediately after the start of the full-scale invasion—they had sent official letters requesting removal from the editorial boards of Russian journals but never received a response. They considered their journal membership to effectively end.

A separate category includes individuals who said they had suspended all forms of cooperation and communication with Russian colleagues and journals after the full-scale invasion but plan to resume them once the war ends. There were 21 such responses (6.4% of the total).

We conducted sentiment analysis of the responses using the Orange Data Mining Toolbox. The analysis showed a high level of emotional intensity: most responses had clearly positive or negative tones, with far fewer neutral ones.

Responses from scholars who had terminated their participation in editorial boards or believed they had left showed the highest share of negatively toned messages (over 50%). By contrast, scholars who continue to participate or have no clear position sent a substantial share (also over 50%) of positively toned messages. Fake editorial board members had the highest share of neutral comments (24.4%) compared to other categories.

What is the reaction of international publishers to this situation? 

There is none—even in cases involving falsified editorial boards—because business is business.

We sent letters with evidence to Springer and Scopus. Springer stated that they see no problem. This is an expected response from a publisher of 200 Russian journals, including, for example, the Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute, which is a translated version of the Russian journal Kratkie soobshcheniya po fizike, published by the P. N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. That institute is officially under sanctions by both the European Union and the United States.

We sent to Scopus eight evidence packages containing direct proof of editorial board falsification involving the following journals indexed in the database:

• Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute
• Coke and Chemistry
• Geotectonics  
• Obrabotka Metallov 
• Philological Class
• Reviews on Clinical Pharmacology and Drug Therapy 
• Russian Chemical Bulletin 
• Sever i Rynok: Formirovanie Ekonomiceskogo Poradka

As a result, Coke and Chemistry was removed from Scopus. Despite these limited results, the effort is not hopeless. Still, of course, one journal out of eight is not the outcome one would like to see.

Overall, this creates a deeply troubling situation in which Russia, cloaking itself in claims of apoliticality, openly falsifies science through the editorial boards of its journals, while international publishers and scientometric databases tolerate this.

Ignoring the problem creates conditions both for preserving the status quo and for further abuse by Russia. By contrast, drawing attention to the issue can create grounds for change. The hundreds of responses from scholars expressing their intention to leave Russian journal editorial boards show that the effort is worthwhile.

In this context, in 2026, we plan a third wave of research into membership on the editorial boards of Russian journals indexed in Scopus, covering more than 200 journals and over 1,500 scholar respondents.