Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who faked emails to do his own peer review
Hyung-In Moon, the South Korean plant compound researcher who made up email addresses so he could do his own peer review, is now up to 35 retractions.
The four new retractions are of the papers in the Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry that initially led to suspicions when all the reviews came back within 24 hours. Here’s the notice, which includes the same language as Moon’s 24 other retractions of studies published in Informa Healthcare journals:
The corresponding author and publisher hereby retract the following articles from publication in Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry:
Effect of betaine on the hepatic damage from orotic acid-induced fatty liver development in rats
Jae-Young Cha, Hyeong-Soo Kim, Hyung-In Moon, and Young-Su Cho
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry [epub ahead of print], 2012, doi: 10.3109/14756366.2011.641014
Antiobesity activity of fermented Angelicae gigantis by high fat diet-induced obese rats
Jae-Young Cha, Jae-Jun Jeong, Chang-Su Park, Hee-Young Ahn, Hyung-In Moon, and Young-Su Cho
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry [epub ahead of print], 2012, doi: 10.3109/14756366.2011.615746
Antioxidant properties of benzylchroman derivatives from Caesalpinia sappan L. against oxidative stress evaluated in vitro
Min-Ja Lee, Hye-Sook Lee, Hyuck Kim, Hyo-Seung Yi, Sun-Dong Park, Hyung-In Moon, and Won-Hwan Park
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry 2010 25:5, 608-614
Larvicidal effects of the major essential oil of Pittosporum tobira against Aedes aegypti (L.)
Ill-Min Chung, Su-Hyun Seo, Eun-Young Kang, Won-Hwan Park, and Hyung-In Moon
Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry 2010 25:3, 391-393
The peer-review process for all of the above articles was found to have been compromised and inappropriately influenced by the corresponding author, Professor HI Moon. As a result the findings and conclusions of these articles cannot be relied upon.
The corresponding author and the publisher wish to retract these papers to preserve the integrity of material published in the journal. The publisher acknowledges that the integrity of the peer review process should have been subject to more rigorous verification to ensure the reviews provided were genuine and impartial. The publisher apologizes for any inconvenience rendered to the readers of the journal and wishes to assure the reader that measures have been taken to ensure that the peer review process is comprehensively checked to avoid a similar error occurring.
In addition to the now 28 notices during this most recent episode, Moon retracted seven papers several years ago for unspecified errors, some of which the notices called “major.”