Examine the reported lawsuit of a female who experienced a routine mammogram and was informed that there was no sign of cancer. Roughly 2 years after, the woman underwent another mammogram. This time the mammogram was interpreted as showing no modification to the dilated duct from the previous mammogram. However, the prior mammogram had not exposed a dilated duct and therefore the physicians did nothing to look into the suspicious reverse from the prior, clean, mammogram. Her mammogram was misinterpreted and her cancer was not detected.The fallout from Moon’s confession: 28 content articles in various journals published by Informa had been retracted, and one editor resigned. An editor at among the journals released by Sage Publications became suspicious, sparking a thorough and lengthy investigation, in July 2014 which led to the retraction of 60 articles. At the end of 2014, BioMed Central and other publishers alerted the international Committee on Publication Ethics to new forms of systematic attempts to manipulate journals’ peer-review processes. According to a statement published on COPE’s website in January 2015, these initiatives to hijack the scholarly review system were evidently orchestrated by companies that 1st helped authors create or enhance their scientific articles and marketed them favorable peer reviews.4 BioMed Central conducted a thorough investigation of all their recently published content articles and identified 43 which were published on the basis of testimonials from fabricated reviewers.