Apologies in advance for the headache that might come your way after reading this post, but the journal Chaos has a mindbending retraction.
The editors have pulled an article they published in January 2019 over concerns about contaminated peer review and other problems. The paper, “Neglecting nonlocality leads to unrealistic numerical scheme for fractional differential equation: Fake and manipulated results,” was a broadside against an article that had appeared in a different journal.
According to the author, Muhammad Altaf Khan, of the City University of Science and Information Technology in Peshawar, Pakistan:
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main comment raised on the published manuscript [A. Atangana and K. M. Owolabi, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 13, 3 (2018)] by Garrappa [Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 70, 302–306 (2019)]. It was shown that the scheme proposed by Garrappa [Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 70, 302–306 (2019)] did not capture the memory and nonlocality and led to unreliable results. Therefore, we decided to highlight and validate this issue by means of a scheme where misprinting or typos were observed. Further, we propose some examples where some of them were reported by Garrappa [Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 70, 302–306 (2019)]. It is shown further by considering different examples of the nature of linear and nonlinear problems, and we show that the scheme presented by Atangana and Owolabi [Math. Model. Nat. Phenom. 13, 3 (2018)] is correct and gives 100% agreement for the case of linear problems with the other methods in the literature, while for the case of nonlinear problems, it gives a reasonable agreement and thus the claim by Garrappa [Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 70, 302–306 (2019)] is baseless.
But in mid-May, the journal issued the following notice recalling Khan’s piece:
The Editor and the Publisher of Chaos are retracting the referenced publication,1 which was submitted as part of a Focus Issue on Fractional Differential Operators. The peer review process for this article was compromised and, in addition, the article contains substantial commentary on work published in Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation.2 This violates Chaos‘ policy which states that only comments on articles published in Chaos may be considered for publication. Finally, there are claims in the conclusions of Ref. 1, suggesting that the author of Ref. 2 manipulated results. The journal has no evidence to support these claims. For these reasons, this article has been retracted.
Where to begin? If, as Chaos maintains, the journal doesn’t publish critiques of papers that have appeared in other publications, why did it accept Khan’s manuscript in the first place? And, if the journal had no evidence to support his claims … why did it accept Khan’s manuscript in the first place?
As the notice states, the peer-review process seems to have been hacked. The language is what we’ve seen in cases of fake peer review, which has been a reason for more than 650 retractions since 2012.
We emailed the editor for clarification but haven’t heard back. Meanwhile, we did receive a response — albeit a convoluted one — from Khan to our queries. He disagreed with the retraction and blamed the decision on xenophobia, saying that the editor is “a Bogus person” and “selfish.”
The paper being critiqued in the now-retracted paper has, we note, been subjected to a corrigendum, but it does not appear to have any significant effect on the results, and the errors do not seem to suggest manipulation.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at email@example.com.