Why just have three peer-reviewed publications when you can reuse figures to publish a fourth?
That’s the sort of thinking that got one research group slapped with a retraction of their 2009 study, “Carbon Nanotubes Are Able To Penetrate Plant Seed Coat and Dramatically Affect Seed Germination and Plant Growth.”
The journal ACS Nano, published by the American Chemical Society, issued the retraction on Aug. 20:
This paper was withdrawn due to violations of the Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research of the American Chemical Society for reason of unacceptable redundant inclusion of text and graphics from two works previously published in other journals (Morphology of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Affected by the Thermal Stability of the Catalyst System. E. Dervishi, Z. Li, A. R. Biris, D. Lupu, S. Trigwell, A. S. Biris. DOI: 10.1021/cm062237l; Influence of the RF Excitation of the Catalyst System on the Morphology of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes. A. S. Biris, T. C. Schmitt, R. B. Little, Z. Li, Y. Xu, A. R. Biris, D. Lupu, E. Dervishi, S. Trigwell, D. W. Miller, Z. Rahman. DOI: 10.1021/jp0740346). Specifically, Figures 1b, 1c, and 1d were reproduced from these sources without acknowledging their prior use. In addition, Figure 1a was also previously published in another article (Analysis of effluent gases during the CCVD growth of multi-wall carbon nanotubes from acetylene. T.C. Schmitt, A.S. Biris, D.W. Miller, A.R. Biris, D. Lupu, S. Trigwell, Z.U. Rahman. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2006.01.008).
Manuscript DOI: 10.1021/jp0740346 has also been withdrawn. The original ACS Nano paper was published ASAP on September 22, 2009, and withdrawn on August 20, 2012.
The second withdrawn paper to which the notice refers is “Influence of the RF Excitation of the Catalyst System on the Morphology of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes,” published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry C. The two papers were cited 46 times and 15 times, respectively, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The repeated figures also led to a correction of another ACS journal, Chemistry of Materials, for “Morphology of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Affected by the Thermal Stability of the Catalyst System:”
This article was found to contain data and graphics that were improperly included and misused in two papers subsequently published in other journals by the same authors (ACS Nano 2009, 3, 3221−3227, DOI: 10.1021/nn900887m; J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 17970−17975, DOI: 10.1021/jp0740346). The ACS Nano and J. Phys. Chem. C articles have since been retracted. Moreover, two figures in this article (2a and 2c) are the same as those contained in another paper (Carbon 2006, 44, 2032−2038; DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2006.01.008; Figures 1a and 2) and were not acknowledged as such in the Chem. Mater. paper.
Alexandru S. Biris, the lead investigator on the retracted paper, was one of seven winners of the 2011 faculty excellence award for research at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, where he leads the Center for Integrative Nanotechnology Sciences.
Biris did not respond to several phone calls or email messages, and a spokesperson for the university for UALR did not return calls for comment.
We’ll let you know if we find out more. In the meantime, we’ll remind Retraction Watch readers that ACS Nano takes duplication — a.k.a. self-plagiarism — quite seriously, as we reported last year.
“This article was found to contain data and graphics that were improperly included and misused in two papers subsequently published in other journals by the same authors”.
Sounds nonsensical. Even more so that the two offending papers have already been retracted.
Below is identical case of multiple reuse of figures without any attribution, but so far (almost one year now) there is a great deal of RELUCTANCE from the editor (Ms Carme Borrell), the publisher (Elsevier), the institutions (Universitat Pompeu Fabra and University of Toronto), and regrettably COPE (Natalie Ridgeway and Virginia Barbour) to Do-the-Right-Thing.
The paper “Welfare state, labour market inequalities and health. In a global context: An integrated framework. SESPAS report 2010″ published in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010; 24(Suppl 1):56–61, contains two figures (the core of the paper) which appear in earlier publication of the same authors, however, without any reference to the earlier publication entitled “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007, available here:http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/articles/emconet_who_report.pdf
Fig. 1. Macro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 57 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 13. Policy entry points in the macro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007;
Fig. 2. Micro-level framework and policy entry points on p. 58 from the above mentioned paper in Gaceta Sanitaria is identical to Figure 14. Policy entry points in the micro-theoretical framework on p. 109 from “Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities”, Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), 20 September 2007.
Apart from the identical figures, there are striking similarities in the texts of these two publications.
WHO Report, 2007:
Figure 2 provides a micro conceptual framework from which we can assess the potential links between employment conditions and health inequalities through a number of behavioural, psychosocial, and physiopathological pathways. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories: physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. axes such as social class, gender, or ethnicity/race are key relational mechanisms that explain why workers will be exposed differently to risk. the key axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Material deprivation and economic inequalities, exposures which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), may also have an important effect on chronic diseases and mental health.
Gaceta Sanitaria, 2010:
The “Micro Conceptual Framework” (fig. 2) identifies the links between employment conditions and health inequalities with reference to three different pathways: behavioural, psychosocial, and physio-pathological. Potential exposures and risk factors are classified into four main categories which are physical, chemical, ergonomic, and psychosocial. The specific mechanisms of stratification according to (for example) class, gender, and ethnicity/race explain how workers are exposed to risk in different ways. The axes generating work-related health inequalities can influence disease even though the profile of risk factors may vary dramatically. Exposure to material deprivation and economic inequalities, which are closely related to employment conditions (e.g., nutrition, poverty, housing, income, etc.), have important effects not only on acute conditions but also on chronic diseases and mental health.
Then, the very same figures appear once again in 2011 WHO publicationhttp://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241503037_eng.pdf (p.165-195), once again with different titles and with absolutely no attribution to the earlier publications in Gaceta Sanitaria 2010, or WHO 2007.
The same figures appear also in other publications of these authors, this time in peer reviewed journal:
See “A Macro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” in International Journal of Health Services (IJHS) Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 215-221
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a macro-level model on p. 217
See “A Meso— and Micro-level Model of Employment Relations and Health Inequalities” in IJHS Vol. 40, No. 2, 2010, p. 223-227.
Figure 1. Theoretical framework of employment relations and health inequalities: a micro-level model on p.225
The figures are always the same, they always appear with different titles (is this an honest mistake or intentional deception?), and always there is absolutely no attribution.
In an email to me the Vice Rector for Faculty Affairs at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (institution of one of the authors) openly admits that “Figures 1 and 2 do not explicitly refer to the document“ and that “the original report is not directly cited”.
Interestingly enough, the University of Toronto (institution of one of the authors) has Framework for dealing with misconduct, which states: “Specifically, the following acts generally are considered instances of Research Misconduct: 4.1 m) Misleading publication, for example: 9. Portraying one’s own work as original or novel without acknowledgement of prior publication”.
See here: http://www.research.utoronto.ca/ethics/pdf/conduct/framework.pdf
On top of this, there are copyright irregularities, since at present three parties (WHO, Elsevier and Baywood Publishing) claim simultaneously the copyright on identical material!
Elsevier declares that:
“ One of the conditions of submission of an article for publication is that authors declare explicitly that the article and/or its main results have not been published, nor are under consideration for publication, elsewhere. As such this article represents a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system. The scientific community takes a very strong view on this matter and apologies are offered to readers of the journal that this was not detected during the submission process”.
and also:
“One of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare explicitly that their work is original and has not appeared in a publication elsewhere. The re-use of material, without appropriate reference, even if not known to the authors at the time of submission, breaches our publishing policies”,
but so far does nothing (not even responding to my emails).
COPE declares here http://publicationethics.org/about that “All COPE members are expected to follow the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. COPE will investigate complaints that members have not followed the Code”, but so far continuously deflects the above issue.
All this proves that the current system which is based on trust and self-regulation is unable to fulfil its main purpose – to maintain clean the scientific publications. Rather, the above case is an example of multiple misconducts and cover up on all levels.
The time for a change is long overdue!
Only the Transparency Index has the potential to show whether the editor/publisher/institutions really
Do-the-Right-Thing to maintain clean the scientific publications.
You better make a post out of it in Science-Fraud.org, and instead of pushing the case to editor, push it to public view. This should put it in a more uncomfortable and eventually (new editor, other complaints, etc) the paper will be retracted. At least you surely will reduce its citation rate.
In the nanotech field there was until recently an entire blog devoted to image fraud (http://nanotechmanipulation.wordpress.com/) but it went private a couple of months ago. No explanation why, and no way to contact the author to get an invitation to view, which is all rather frustrating because they were doing a good job! Up to that point, the pages were bursting with examples of image manipulation, in particular the papers of SK Sahoo (http://www.ils.res.in/sksahoo.htm).
Dr. Biris’ problem is NOT simply reusing figures. Since the experimental conditions are different in these papers, how can he get the same results?
The similar problems are also found many of his 1st authored articles, e.g.,
– A. Biris, S. Ardelean, D. Lupu, I. Misan, C. Iancu, D. M. Bartos, I. R. Ilie, E. Dervishi, Y. Xu, A. Biswas, A. Biris, Studies on near infrared optical absorption, Raman scattering, and corresponding thermal properties of single- and double-walled carbon nanotubes for possible cancer targeting and laser-based ablation, Carbon, Volume 49, Issue 13, November 2011, Pages 4403–4411
– A. Biris, A. Biris, D. Lupu, S. Trigwell, E. Dervishi, Z. Rahman, P. Marginean, Catalyst excitation by radio frequency for improved carbon nanotubes synthesis, Chemical Physics Letters, Volume 429, Issue 1, p. 204-208.
– A. Biris, D. Boldor, J. Parker, W. Monroe, M. Mahmood, E. Dervishi, Y. Xu, Z. Li, E. I. Galanzha, V. P. Zharov. “Nanophotothermolysis of multiple scattered cancer cells with carbon nanotubes guided by time-resolved infrared thermal imaging”. J. Biomed. Opt., Vol. 14, 021007 (2009).
I totally agree with you.
I am in the Nanofiled for years. I feel the biggest problem about his retracted publications are there several ‘extremely’ similar figures in different papers, but the synthesis conditions are totally different. This is something I don’t feel it is right.
As working in Nanofield for years, some nanoparticles are always look the same, just like nano-scale zero-valent iron. So if the nanoparticles look similar under the same synthesis condition, I wouldn’t that picky.
Personally I feel the biggest problem is that the leaders of the corrupt university publicly and unconditionally encourages Alexandru Biris to cheat. Biris never got punished for his bad integrity but received numerous awards instead.
Another article from Biris in NNL is now marked as retracted (see http://www.aspbs.com/nnl/contents_nnl2009.htm#v1n2, p. 107).
“Retraction Notice for: One Step Synthesis of Ceramic Carbon Nanotube Composites with Nanojunctions”. No link related to the article works. The Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Lett. editor seems very shy to give the reason why this article was extracted.
That looks like a multiple submission. ‘Novel synthesis process for ceramic carbon nanotube nanocomposites with nanojunctions’ in Phys. Status Solidi A 206, 2826 (2009) and ‘One Step Synthesis of Ceramic Carbon Nanotube Composites with Nanojunctions’ in Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Lett. 1, 107 (2009) are VERY similar papers. Figures and text passages are almost the same in the two articles. It gets retracted likely due to the violation of the copy right policy of the journals.
Figure 1 in NNL is the same as Figure 4 in PSSa;
Figure 2 in NNL is the same as Figure 5 in PSSa;
Figure 3a and b are the same as Figure 6c and Figure 7 in PSSa.
“Biris did not respond to several phone calls or email messages, and a spokesperson for the university for UALR did not return calls for comment.” It clearly tells you that they don’t care about it. In other words, that is the reason that the university hired Biris, honored him with many awards, and appointed him to the leader of the center. He has ethical problems. So what?!
Possible duplicate publication was also found in the following two of Biris’ papers:
[IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 45, (2009) 2162-2169] Graphitic materials for RF thermal ablation of tumors, by M. Mahmood, Y. Xu, Z. Li, E. Dervishi, N. Ali, V. Saini, Alexandru S. Biris, S. Trigwell, V. P. Zharov, and Alexandru R. Biris
[Nanotechnology 19, (2008) 435012] Cobalt nanoparticles coated with crystalline graphitic shells as high efficient and localized RF absorbers for tumor thermal ablation, by Y. Xu, M. Mahmood, Z. Li, E. Dervishi, S. Trigwell, V. P Zharov, N. Ali, V. Saini, Alexandru R. Biris, D. Lupu, D. Boldor and Alexandru S. Biris
Despite being retracted, a Chinese web-site openly displays the original article, thus leading to others continued citing of this paper:
doc.sciencenet.cn/upload/file/201232282551371.pdf
BIRIS AMONG STATE’S FIRST RESEARCH FELLOWS
http://ualr.edu/news/2014/12/05/ualrs-biris-among-states-first-research-fellows/
After so many retractions of his publications, Biris still gets awarded frequently.
“I am pleased that Dr. Biris has been recognized for his remarkable research as an ARA Fellow,” said UALR Chancellor Joel Anderson. “His record as a researcher, teacher, and mentor speaks for itself. In a state with limited resources, Dr. Biris has been a facilitator for leveraging funds, and his belief in nurturing the next generation of scientists is evident in his work with students.”
Very funny! Biris is the very treasure of UALR.
With the encouragements from the university administrators, no one can stop Biris committing data fabrication, even after so many retractions of his publications:
Figure 2 in “Tracking Gold Nanorods’ Interaction with Large 3D Pancreatic-Stromal Tumor Spheroids by Multimodal Imaging: Fluorescence, Photoacoustic, and Photothermal Microscopies”, Scientific Reports (2020) 10:3362
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59226-6 was copied from Figure 4 in “Plasmonic nano surface for neuronal differentiation and manipulation”, Nanomedicine: Nanotech, Biol & Med. 21 (2019) 102048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2019.102048.
Even in the same article “Towards rainbow portable Cytophone with laser diodes for global disease diagnostics.”, Scientific Reports. 12, 8671 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11452-w, Figure 4 and Figure 5 are exactly the same.
Amazing Biris can use the same figures/data to make different stories.