Less than two weeks after Retraction Watch reported that an abstract from 2019 included what appeared to be text from plagiarism detection software, the publisher has subjected the paper to an expression of concern and is investigating all of the lead author’s papers.
The paper,”Identification of Selective Forwarding Attacks in Remote locator Network utilizing Adaptive Trust Framework,” appeared as part of an IOP Conference Series. Nick Wise, an engineering graduate student at Cambridge, flagged the incident on Twitter, which IOP Publishing told us they had not yet heard about.
Today, IOP Publishing spokesperson Rachael Harper told Retraction Watch:
Upon receiving the notification that raised concerns over the paper, we have contacted the authors to ask for an explanation. We have not received a reply to date and have informed the authors that while we continue to investigate, we have issued the following expression of concern to the paper, to ensure the readership are aware of [the] situation.
The EOC appears below the abstract:
This article is currently under investigation following an allegation that raises concerns over the originality of the paper and the inclusion of nonsensical content. As a member of COPE this is being investigated in accordance with the COPE guidelines, and as such an expression of concern is applied.’
Harper added:
We will continue to investigate the matter in line with the principles set out by COPE, and to reach the authors. We are also investigating all other papers published in IOP Publishing journals by the lead author.
A search of the IOP Publishing platform suggests that lead author B. Baron Sam has co-authored four articles there. One begins with “Start your abstract here…”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, 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 protected].
Sounds like the journal also needs to be concerned about their proofing process.
Amen. The investigation on these papers should take about 30 seconds each before retraction. The investigation into how the journal screwed up so royally can take as long as they like.
“[W]e are proposing a Shrewd ceasing system which enables the customer to find the nearest halting domain and gives openness of halting spaces in that individual ceasing zone.”
Note that all four papers are published in the same conference proceedings volume. Maybe that entire volume should be looked at more carefully.
And, maybe, – as it would’ve happened in a sane world – a few dozens other conference volumes?
I think B. Baron Sam is really Baron Samedi in disguise, having a little joke with us.
Dimensions lists 27 publications containing the template text: “Start your abstract here…” in the abstract (https://twitter.com/gcabanac/status/1437765460133613571).
I reported them all on PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/search?q=%22template+text%22).
You should read carefully the abstract of the paper that starts with “Start your abstract here…”. Quoting:
“As there is a development in surge hour gridlock especially in the midst of the apex hours of the day, it is difficult to stop the vehicle in the halting opening. To handle this issue we are proposing sagacious halting system. So we are proposing a Shrewd ceasing system which enables the customer to find the nearest halting domain and gives openness of halting spaces in that individual ceasing zone. It prevalently revolve around diminishing the time in finding the halting openings and moreover it keeps up a vital separation from the unnecessary voyaging. Along these lines it decreases the fuel use. This system uses Cloud Computing and Internet of things”
Expressions like “stop the vehicle in the halting opening” or “a Shrewd ceasing system” sound very much like Tortured phrases, as discussed in arXiv:2107.06751 (e.g. “Shrewd ceasing system” should probably be “Smart Parking System”).
Could such sentences be indicative of trying to confuse plagiarism detection systems? Note also that in the original “Identification of Selective Forwarding …” paper, the title mentions “Adaptive Trust Framework”, while throughout the rest of the paper only the expression “mindful notoriety framework” appears (which I don’t know if it means anything?).
It looks like a scigen situation