Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

“Lack of scientific contributions and novelty” fells math paper

with one comment


A journal apparently changed its mind about the uniqueness of a math paper, published last year.

We’ll get right to the brief retraction notice

The paper: “AL-Watani manifold admitting semi symmetric metric connection” by Musa A.A. Jawarneh, which appeared in Pure Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 4, 2015, no. 1, 1-8 has been retracted from Pure Mathematical Sciences due to a lack of scientific contributions and novelty.

Although the Committee on Publication Ethics recommends keeping retracted papers online along with the notice, the paper has been removed from the issue of the journal in which it appeared. The journal is not indexed by Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

Musa A.A. Jawarneh — the paper’s sole author, who works at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia — said he didn’t know why the paper had been retracted.

The journal’s editorial office has not replied to our requests for more information on the retraction. The publisher, Hikari, is on the list of “potential, possible, or probable” predatory publishers maintained by Jeffrey Beall.

We recently saw another journal change its mind about a paper, with little explanation as to why. As we reported earlier this month, the Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management decided that an article no longer “fit” with the journal. In that case, the disgruntled author is planning to sue.

Hat tip: Tansu Kucukoncu

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Written by Shannon Palus

May 23rd, 2016 at 11:30 am

  • Timo Soren May 24, 2016 at 10:12 am

    This should be illegal. Changing their mind on publishable quality based on their opinion is grounds for damages.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Email address