Researchers try to get paper published, but publisher asks for paper authors to add citations that weren't used in the research, presumably to increase citations of certain 'blessed' papers.
Authors add the citations, but also a note that the citations were not used and were asked for by the publisher.
If this is all correct, I'm curious what the publisher's relationship is to those cited papers. Were the citations paid for? Something else?
Papers are usually reviewed by ~3 reviewers who can ask for revisions. Reviewers are typically anonymous to the authors, although the authors are usually not anonymous to the reviewers. If the reviewers ask for revisions (most common), the authors can revise the paper. This can go back and forth numerous times.
Reviewers can be professors, PhD students, etc. and are paid by the journal for their time. There are many ways to manipulate the system. Reviewers can block or slow the publication of a rival, or they can suggest changes that benefit themselves (e.g. quid pro quo). Often this isn't so blatant and the line can be very blurry.
The publisher and editor typically don't care much about the politics and conflicts of interest.
Most journals do not pay for reviewers time. There are some experiments that allow for this, but I would say 99% of the reviews out there are done... "out of the goodness of the reviewer's heart".
There are indirect benefits to being a reviewer, such as early access to unpublished work, "goodwill" with the editor, etc.
Lmao