The science minister of Iran has amassed four retractions recently over concerns about the authenticity of chemicals used in the studies.
Mohammad Ali Zolfigol, who has held the post of Minister of Science, Research and Technology for more than a year, is first or second author in all four of the papers, which appeared between 2015 and 2016 in journals published by the UK Royal Society of Chemistry.
The authors acknowledge that they had been using the wrong substance – a molecule called tricyanomethane – claiming to have purchased a fake form of the chemical. But Zolfigol and his colleagues object to the retractions, on grounds that aren’t clear.
Here’s the notice for one of the articles, titled “Design of 1-methylimidazolium tricyanomethanide as the first nanostructured molten salt and its catalytic application in the condensation reaction of various aromatic aldehydes, amides and β-naphthol compared with tin dioxide nanoparticles,” which RSC Advances published in 2015 and which has been cited 45 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science:
The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this RSC Advances article as the synthesis of 1-methylimidazolium tricyanomethanide reported in the article, whereby tricyanomethane is used as a starting material, is not reproducible. The authors stated that they did not report the synthesis of tricyanomethane in the published paper as they purchased this compound from a commercial center and used it in the synthesis of ionic liquids, molten salts and various kinds of catalysts. The authors thought the reaction between tricyanomethane and organic bases is a simple acid–base reaction, therefore they did not cite the previously reported literature and its related history for the preparation of tricyanomethane. However, according to papers by Banert et al.,1,2 and based on their obtained analysis of the chemical sold to them as tricyanomethane, it became clear to the authors that this purchased compound was not tricyanomethane as there were differences in the 1H NMR and 13C NMR chemical shift between the purchased compound and the reports of Banert et al.1 According to these documents, the authors believe that the compound sold to them as tricyanomethane was fake. While the authors have now re-prepared 1-methylimadazolium tricyanomethanide, by synthesising potassium tricyanomethanide as a starting material for the synthesis,3–5 the synthesis reported in this article is not accurate. Therefore, this article is being retracted to avoid misleading readers and to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
Mohammad Ali Zolfigol, Saeed Baghery and Ahmad Reza Moosavi-Zare oppose the retraction. Seyed Mohammad Vahdat, Heshmatollah Alinezhad and Mohammad Norouzi were contacted but did not respond.
At the time, Zolfigol had recently left the presidency of Bu-Ali Sina University.
Similar notices appear for:
- “Experimental and theoretical studies of the nanostructured {Fe3O4@SiO2@(CH2)3Im}C(CN)3 catalyst for 2-amino-3-cyanopyridine preparation via an anomeric based oxidation” (89 cites);
- “Synthesis and characterization of novel silica-coated magnetic nanoparticles with tags of ionic liquid. Application in the synthesis of polyhydroquinolines” (39 cites);
- “[TEATNM] and [TEATCM] as novel catalysts for the synthesis of pyridine-3,5-dicarbonitriles via anomeric-based oxidation” (28 cites).
Zolfigol has not responded to a request for comment about the papers or why he objects to the retractions.
Hat tip: Mohammad Saeid Rezaee Zavareh
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, 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].
There are more on PubPeer.
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=zolfigol
These retractions seem to be political, not fully scientific, when we think about many things together: His political role as to the science, social protests in Iran, the world sanctions against the Iran government, the time of investigation about his publications, etc.
Jessica, perhaps critical attention to his work may have been partly motivated by politics. But the rationale for the retraction described above seems to me (I have zero expertise in this area) to be “fully scientific”.
It might as well be political that everyone was blind to shenanigans in his studies for a long time.
No need to mix politics and retractions. You are either a cheat or you are not. Whether a feminist, politically active, or else, the bottom line is: do not cheat. I hope Retraction Watch could also investigate anomalies and unethical behavior in the business management field. I do not see enough of this here; most cases are from the sciences.