PLOS Issues Peer-Review Concern for China Digital Economy Study

The editors of PLOS One have issued an Expression of Concern for a 2023 article evaluating China’s provincial digital economy development and its coupling coordination relationship. Published on October 19, 2026, the notice states that the paper was identified as one of a series of submissions for which the journal had concerns about the integrity and/or reliability of the peer-review process.

The affected article, “Evaluation of China’s provincial digital economy development level and its coupling coordination relationship,” was authored by K. Lin, X. Zhang and J. Hou and appeared in PLOS One in 2023. The Expression of Concern does not reproduce the study’s data, methods, numerical findings or conclusions, so it provides no basis for independently confirming or disputing the paper’s results about provincial development or the relationship among provincial trajectories.

PLOS said it was following up on the matter and advised readers to interpret the article with consideration of the Expression of Concern. The journal also specified that it had not evaluated the article’s integrity or scientific validity. The notice therefore does not state that the research findings are false, identify an error in the analysis or announce that the article has been retracted. It does, however, place the reliability of the publication’s peer-review process under an unresolved editorial concern.

The editors said they had no concerns regarding the authors’ conduct during peer review. This means the notice is not an allegation of improper behavior by Lin, Zhang or Hou. Instead, it identifies the integrity or reliability of peer review as the issue requiring further examination. Because the paper was part of a series of submissions with similar concerns, the notice also suggests that the issue may extend beyond this article, although it gives no details about the other submissions or the specific features of the review that raised concern.

No information is provided about the number of reviewers, the reports submitted, editorial correspondence, requested revisions or other aspects of the publication history. Those details would be necessary to explain how the concern arose, and the Expression of Concern does not permit a conclusion about any particular stage or individual involved in the process. It also does not say what further action PLOS may take. Until the journal provides additional information, the published study should be read with the stated peer-review concern in mind, without assuming either that its conclusions have been disproved or that they have been independently validated by the notice.

Subject of Research: A PLOS One Expression of Concern concerning peer review for a study of China’s provincial digital economy.

Article Title: Expression of Concern: Evaluation of China’s provincial digital economy development level and its coupling coordination relationship

Article References: The PLOS One Editors (2026). Expression of Concern: Evaluation of China’s provincial digital economy development level and its coupling coordination relationship. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360865. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360865

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360865

Keywords: PLOS One, Expression of Concern, peer review, research integrity, digital economy, China, provincial development, publication ethics, Expression, Concern, Evaluation, provincial