How do I report to Springer a scientific fraud to a cryptographic paper published in Springer?

Question

I was reading a study listed in Springer. The study reviews the literature for solving the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem through index calculus.

But some of the previous works cited seems to not exist. For example:

Takagi [19] introduced index calculus as a method for solving the ECDLP on abelian varieties of small dimensions. Proposed approach solved a system of polynomial equations in many variables by generating a Gröbner basis of a curve associated polynomial ideal. The algorithm’s stages are as follows: First, choose a prime p with a low embedding degree k for the elliptic curve E over Fp. Determining E’s endomorphism ring, which is isomorphic to the maximum order of a quaternion algebra and the Gröbner basis for the ideal of polynomial interactions between E endomorphisms, comes next.
Finally, solve multivariable polynomial problems using linear algebra and the theory of Chinese remainder. The complexity of the method in Fp is sub-exponential in p’s bit length: O(exp(2(2 k/3)) * log(p)(3/2)). As a result, ECDLP security becomes finite field security.

With the quote being:

19. Takagi T (2009) Index calculus for abelian varieties of small dimension and the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem. J Cryptol 22(4):545–572

While a paper with this title exists, it wasn’t published by this author and claims to avoid working in the way described above/in this article.

There are several issues like: papers from real authors working in the field that the authors never wrote. Or even outright technically questionable affirmations like the original Coppersmith’s algorithm can be adapted in an inefficient way to work in elliptic curves. Not to mention peoples who write index calculus algorithms try to avoid using the Chinese Remainder Theorem.

That might had been okay, for a paper performing its own research for developing new algorithms, but the aim of the paper is to perform a review of the existing literature (which in large part don’t exist).

I know Springer is supposed to be a peer reviewed journal, but obviously things were overlooked. I wrote to the authors, but of course they didn't reply. So, how/where should I send my concerns about the trustworthiness of such paper?

Update

Although funny since I’m struggling for My Master degree

Dear Dr. Cellier,
Thank you for contacting Springer Nature.  Please be informed that I have raised your concern to the Editorial Office for further assistance. They will get back to you as soon as they can.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us quoting your Ticket ID [#9406332]. With kind regards,
--
Sophia Punzalan
Journal Support Specialist
Publishing Support
Springer Nature Group
www.springernature.com
--
Visit Springer Nature Support for answers to our most frequently asked questions.
-- 
Every day around the globe, our imprints, books, journals, platforms and technology solutions reach millions of people – opening the doors to discovery for our communities by enabling them to access, trust and make sense of the latest research, so that they can improve outcomes, make progress, and benefit the generations that follow.

Answer 1

I assume that this is an article published in a reputable journal. In that case, it doesn't matter who the publisher is - they just provide some infrastructure and tech support and take the money. What matters is the editorial board of the journal itself.

A concern like the one described here should be raised to the editor-in-chief of the journal.

Contacting the publisher would make sense if the problem is with a book, not a journal article; or if an entire disreputable journal is published by a somewhat reputable publisher such as Springer.

Answer 2

Disclaimer: I am no expert in cryptography, and cannot assess whether your concerns about the overall quality of the review you are mentioning are valid. However, I can use Google Scholar, and confirm that the only entry titled Index calculus for abelian varieties of small dimension and the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem was neither written by Takagi nor published in J Cryptol.

This being said, I would play the angelic cop and recommend not to see malice where there might simply be an honest error. If you spotted an error, it should be reported. To whom? The angelic cop that I am is going to agree with everyone at the same time, and would recommend to notify everyone (sending an email does not cost a lot of money, and the worst that could happen is you not receiving an answer): this includes the authors, editors, and series editors of the book you were reading. Contacting the mothership (Springer) does not hurt either. The legitimate authors of the wrongly quoted papers might also be interested.

Finally (this is a general comment about scientific fraud and dishonesty, and a simple erroneous quote might not justify this), if you are sure your concerns are serious, valid, and legitimate, you could further escalate them, e.g. by opening a discussion on PubPeer or contacting RW.

Answer 3

You can certainly report it to Springer, but if you feel like joining a particularly lovely community of scholars, you could also drop a comment at PubPeer: https://pubpeer.com/publications/606C31655898F92CB82587EEA8EA91 (I am assuming that the publication you refer to is 10.1007/978-981-99-4626-6_23)

The correct publication with that title is here: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1047781667

Answer 4

If Springer published the article then you report it to Springer. They have a public face and a contact page linked from springer.com. The editor of the Journal of Cryptology is a known person and easy to find, so you report it to them. Give full details of your concerns.

Tsuyoshi Takagi also has a known email address. Perhaps he can enlighten you.

You suggest you have reported it without result to the authors, so that step is covered.

But note that it is conceivable that there is a simple explanation that might be hard to figure out. An unintentional error by the author, perhaps.