Two Korean journals last month pulled papers by a prominent cardiologist at Yonsei University, Professor Hui-Nam Pak, with one retraction notice citing “issues related to scientific misconduct.”
Commenters on PubPeer had raised several concerns about data integrity, “mixed-up” data and “statistical nonsense” in “eNOS3 Genetic Polymorphism Is Related to Post-Ablation Early Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation,” which was published in 2015 in Yonsei Medical Journal. The journal retracted the paper on January 19, noting that “we have recently become aware of a number of issues related to scientific misconduct.”
The article was coauthored by Patrick Ellinor, acting chief of cardiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, and has been cited six times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
The other paper, “Serological Predictors for the Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Electrical Cardioversion,” was pulled after a reader tipped the Korean Circulation Journal off that the authors had published a largely identical paper in a European counterpart.
“We received information from the reader that this article has been published in duplicate . . . in EP Europace. With regard to this, the corresponding author fully accepted responsibility of duplicate publication and requested” a retraction, the journal wrote in a January 11 notice.
The retracted article was published in 2010. Commenters on PubPeer flagged the duplicate publication last year, noting that the two papers overlapped “significantly” in most sections. For example, the wording of the introduction in the articles is largely identical, and the conclusions have only minor changes.
In emails seen by Retraction Watch, a graduate of Yonsei University College of Medicine and former trainee under Pak alerted EP Europace to the redundant publication in August 2022 and the Korean Circulation Journal in November 2022. The person, whose name we are withholding because they fear retaliation, received replies from both publications saying they were investigating the issue.
Hui-Nam Pak, the corresponding author on all of the papers, did not respond to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
It’s not the first time his work has been retracted. In 2016, the Korean Circulation Journal pulled a paper he coauthored, “Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Extraction by Conventional Traction and Counter-Traction Technique”, which it had published twice “due to the editorial error occurred in our journal.”
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].
Curious about the role of Patrick Ellinor in the retracted paper.
Beyond question, Prof Pak is a leading cardiac electrophysiologist in Korea. I feel sorry with this circumstance.
Yes, do NOT blame this big guy, Prof Pak. I believe these are not serious ethical problems in Korean medical academia.
But, truth is the truth.
Large numbers of data misconduct in many papers are undoubtful.
There will be more reatracted papers from Pak.
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Hui+nam+Pak
But, truth is the truth. Large numbers of data misconduct are undoubtful.
It is unwise to bind Korean medical academia to someone’s personal behaviors.
Prof Pak is an established cardiac electrophysiologist. I hope he’ll continue to conduct innovative research.
Undoubtfully, Professor Pak’s future research works will be questioned for his no-responding to retracted papers.
Now, it is a golden opportunity to clean and rebuild the academic culture in South Korea.
Many extraordinary scientists like Professor Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD have significantly contributed to build Korean academia. The key issue here is that some former trainees tried to destroy solid Korean medical academia. We should prevent from any further malicious activities by such whistleblowers. We may think about treating whistleblowers as academic vandalism.
Unbelievable!!! man, are you serious? I admire the courage of “whistleblowers”, who are cleaning and rebuilding the academic culture in South Korea. What they are doing prevents next trainee and students suffers from supervisors like Prof Hui-nam Pak.
You can’t be serious right???
It’s hard to understand why some people raise malicious concerns about papers that passed fair peer reviews. I have serious concerns about such malicious anti-academic activities on websites such as PubPeer. I think Prof. Hui-Nam Pak is one of the victims of those malicious and political activities against established physician-scientists.
It’s hard to understand why “established” physician-scientists like Prof. Pak survived with academic dishonesty over a long period of time.
Dear physician scientist:
Scientific misconducting and publishing fraud or incorrect papers should be treated as academic vandalism. Could it be that these cheating practices have been covered up by the authoritative academic culture? Regardless of authority, erroneous papers must be corrected or withdrawn, and measures/policies to prevent recurrence must be established. Whistleblowers literally saved patient’ lives.
It’s hard to understand why prominant physician-scientists like Prof. Pak survived with academic dishonesty over a long period of time.
As an octogenarian RN ret. ….Cardio CU.. I say So what ? Are there False or manipulated data…. improper findings ? A Euro journal is read there…in US it will be majority Americans or foreign born practitioners here….I am amazed to read that apparently there can be only one source for reference in subsequent publishings….if the prints were identical in both journals in this case it would not matter which source is quoted….is this a territorial issue by the journal publishers to each claim the one allowed printing…?
Kaplan-Meier curves looks identical. Surprisingly the journals did not explain the details of scientific misconduct…
https://pubpeer.com/publications/84DB8965E87DECBF05682EB8A5A5F0
Yes. In many papers, it is very difficult to clearly distinguish whether data errors are manipulation or mistakes. Research misconduct must be judged by applying relative standards depending on culture, era, and field. There is no doubt that hierarchy is essential in the medical profession, and whistleblowers deserve strong legal penalties. I hope that students will focus more on their studies than criticize papers that have passed peer review.
How do you find out that “it is very difficult to clearly distinguish whether data errors are manipulation or mistakes”?
There are a lot of clear data manipulation in Pak’s papers, please read the announcement made by chief editors of Yonseimedical journal and Europace, Thanks!
https://www.eymj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3349/ymj.2015.56.5.1244
https://e-kcj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.4070/kcj.2010.40.4.185https://www.eymj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3349/ymj.2015.56.5.1244https://www.eymj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3349/ymj.2015.56.5.1244
The underqualified “student” ruined the career of one preeminent professor in Korea. That’s a take.
It’s hard to understand why “established” physician-scientists like Prof. Pak survived with academic dishonesty over a long period of time.
BME prof:
Retraction notices by the journals clearly state that those papers have scientific misconduct issues. Scientifically incorrect papers can have devastating effects on follow-up research and patient treatment guidelines. The whistleblowers, not even authors of retracted papers, literally saved patients’ lives.
I don’t understand why these papers have serious research ethical issues. These are somewhat common practice in Korean academia. Who reported this prominent and extraordinary professor to the journals and press.
Yes, dual submissions and publications are sometimes acceptable in Korean academia. This is not Professor Pak’s fault. Readers of the Retraction Watch should understand this Korean academic culture.
There is NO such culture in S. Korea. Where are you from? From 1980’s Korea?
I don’t know such culture.
I don’t know that kind of culture, either.
I agree with some point of views here. Indeed, some Korean medical journals encouraged and invited people to resubmit already-published works. Thus, duplicate publications were sometimes accepted in Korean medical society. Also, some kinds of scientific misconducts were not considered serious ethical problems at that time. Therefore, we should not criticize Professor Pak and Yonsei University. Professor Pak received rigorous research training in the US and has dramatically advanced Korean cardiac EP. He is a vice-president of APHRS and editorial board members of many prestigious cardiology journals like Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. We should not misjudge Professor Pak due to these tiny issues.
Fine, how about data falsification in another retracted paper? Could it be attributed to culture of Korean medical journals?
I suggest you not bind these extraordinary organizations to Professor Pak’s own personal behavior.
This is not common nor condoned in South Korea, if anyone in Korea think this is OK ask your institution about it. They will make it clear for you. It might have been common practice 30 years ago but definitely not now. There would be some, but it is an outright lie to say that this is common now.
In Korea, duplicate publications and data errors were somewhat tolerated at that time. I don’t think it’s Professor Hui-Nam Pak’s fault. However, it is true that many of Professor Pak’s papers are scientifically problematic, as pointed out on the PubPeer website. It would be hard to trust his papers as they are anymore.
People… why did you blame this prominent cardiologist? We should focus on “a former trainee ay Pak” who reported this issue.
No. Focusing on the whistleblower is wrong. Either the papers are proper or they are not: it does not matter who complained or why.
Most Western journals have a very clear statement which the authors have to sign, which says that the paper is not submitted or published elsewhere. It may be “academic culture” to double-publish, but signing this statement when it is not true is a flat lie. I hope that Korean academic culture does not condone lies.
No. Whistleblowers should be expelled from academia to maintain solid academic culture. Korea has its own solid academic culture, which should be respectful.
Few would disagree that South Korea has a solid academic and research culture. However, some of the views expressed in this thread are troubling. One would hope that that they are NOT shared by the majority of Korean scientists. Perhaps representatives of the Korean research integrity community can chime in?
There is NO such culture in Korea.
what do you mean by solid academic culture? aren’t you confusing soiled with solid?
M, I meant what I wrote: ‘solid’. See, for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01466-7
“Solid”: “More South Korean academics caught naming kids as co-authors.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03371-0
Structural “solid” academic culture?
C’mon, Industry guy, I didn’t imply that they were perfect. And as my earlier post indicates, I am alarmed by some of the posts to this thread. If in fact some of these views (e.g., whistleblowing) are shared by a significant proportion of South Korean academics, then their RI community better start taking some needed action.
I don’t understand why people attacked prestigious papers that passed a rigorous peer-review process, even if there might be minor errors/mistakes. Korean Circulation Journal (IF 3.2) and Yonsei Medical Journal (IF 2.7) are SCI journals, which incorporate rigorous scientific peer-review processes.
IF score shows no direct correlation with rigor of peer-review, but the reviewer, editor and institute.
Below the two papers (Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, IF=5.8) of Prof Pak shows that the reviewers are from the same institute with Prof Pak or used to be colleagues with Prof Pak. Please comment about this.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5B3EFEBF71C6CBE34D10DDA644BC10#7
https://pubpeer.com/publications/119C31086E19C5070AD1CBB767086B#5
Jocker: I think those peer-review misconduct issues may be attributed to the journal’s mistakes. It may not be Prof Pak’s fault. The papers look fine and terrific.
So you have learned that such wrongdoing made by Journal causes doubt of paper’s quality, not to mention that reviewers and editors of the tow Pak’s retracted papers were never released.
Now, Prof. Pak’s papers published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (IF 5.8) are highlighted in the Predatory Reports for potential peer-review misconduct issues. High impact factors don’t mean rigorous peer review.
https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/is-frontiers-media-a-predatory-publisher
In my personal opinion, “a graduate of Yonsei University College of Medicine and former trainee under Pak” should have not violated the Hippocratic Oath: “To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.”
Owing to personal interests, Professor Pak ruined his followers (students) that should have become excellent doctors saving peoples’ life. Professor Pak disgraced Hippocratic Oath.
Many trainess under Professor Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD have become successful physician-scientists and cardiac electrophysiologists in Korea. Few would disagree that Professor Pak heartfully cares about his trainees and patients. Professor Pak received the Best Clinician Professor Award from Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, and he is also Director of Education and Training at Korean Society of Circulation. Do not blame Professor Pak unless you are a leading cardiologist like him.
That’s why peoples say Korean society of cardiology has a long way to go.
It is predictable that new retractions will come from Pak.
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Hui+nam+Pak
This is the kind of a thought process in Korean academia that leads to massive embarrassments like Hwang Woo Suk. Very unfortunately, the exact same mindset persists in all aspects of academia in Korea – it seems medicine is no different.
Everyone should report on unethical practices. I applaud their courage!
Professor Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD is a world-renown cardiologist and Afib researcher. Do NOT blame him and his papers.
H-index 47
Vice-president of Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, 2021-Present.
Director of Education and Training, Korean Society of Circulation, 2021-Present.
Director of Policy and Insurance, Korean Heart Rhythm Society, 2017-Present.
Secretary General, Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, 2019-2021.
Scientific Program Chair, Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, 2017-2018.
Allied Professional Subcommittee Chair, Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, 2016-2017.
International Cooperation Subcommittee Chair, Korean Heart Rhythm Society, 2016-2017.
Scientific Program Chair, Korean Heart Rhythm Society, 2013-2016.
Director of Medical Education and Training Center, Yonsei University, 2021-Present
Medical Deputy Director, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2021-Present.
Director of Heart and Vascular Intervention Center, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2019-Present
Program Chair, Severance Cerebrocardiovascular Research Center, 2019-Present.
Director of Cardiac Intervention and Electrophysiology Laboratory, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2014-2019.
Outside Cooperation Committee Chair, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2017-2021.
Director of Arrhythmia Center, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2016-2018.
Director of Electrophysiology Laboratory, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, 2009-2014.
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/420580/bio
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=7101865848
And therefore?
Exactly. This is why some research misconduct stays unaddressed. People and institutions judge the concerns differently based on a scholar’s status. Undergraduates get kicked out for plagiarism or other misconduct. High profile and well-connected researchers often become untouchable.
Professor Pak seemed to receive rigorous clinical and research training. Undergraduates, graduates, or fellows are still trainees. You should not compare those trainees with Professor Pak.
Why not? Misconduct is misconduct, the status of the offender should be irrelevant.
Yeah, Pak should be judged more strictly. He should know better. Undergraduates, trainees, they might lack knowledge about rules and may make mistakes, but he should know better
What you are doing is making the value of these institutions suspect.
https://twitter.com/HuiNam_Pak
“ Hui-Nam Pak, the corresponding author on all of the papers, did not respond to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.” Perhaps RW can contact him through Twitter?
I’m MDPhD in Korea. Duplicate publishing is not allowed even in Korean Academia. In which academic circles is duplicate publication acceptable? Please do not blur the atmosphere of Korean medical academia. Regardless of popularity, there should be no ethical issues. All researchers go through a long and challenging training process.
I totally agree with you. I also never heard that duplicated publications can be acceptable in South Korea during my 15 years of research experience. Their excuses made this thing more shameful. I hope researchers from other countries don’t misunderstand that all Koreans are like this…
National chauvinism and claims to exceptionality are common everywhere, it would be a miracle if Koreans were exempt. There’s enough human error and bias to go around.
I totally agree this comments
One of the former lab members excluded all papers of Pak lab from his Google Scholar profile. Interesting behavior.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=f-XhiukAAAAJ&hl=en
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Young-Seon-Lee-2
Another source that still includes his works at Pak lab.
https://yonsei.academia.edu/YoungseonLee
Why did he delete his records at Pak lab if he did clean research.
I found some potential issues on PubPeer. I hope people would not say those problems as “Korean culture” or “tiny mistakes.”
https://pubpeer.com/publications/0AB0EC6D9D1EC2878238A1C8532E5A
https://pubpeer.com/publications/72C0AAFB88E44638F790A5378E525C
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E97C43AA2E4E2BC724038C4C85BB03
I cannot believe that some Korean researchers are truely believing that blaming the whistleblowers and duplicate submission is accepted in Korean academia… I feel very embarrased as another Korean researcher.
Well, they might not be Korean at all…even if they are there are bad apples everywhere.
I’m shocked that former “trainees” reported his supervisor, a leading cardiologist in Korea, to the journals. This is definitely unusual behavior and should be judged strictly as well.
If your supervisor behaves unethically, you should report it. If you are in a position to train people, you should tell them not to stand it and that you would protect your trainees who report unethical behavior.
Min, yes, I fully agree with you. Those trainees seemed to be unusual and rude. Those behaviors against Prof Pak should be properly investigated to maintain clean and solid academic culture.
Are you Prof. Pak…?
Another self-plagiarism (data reusing) concern raised on PubPeer:
Shim J, Park JH, Kim JY, Kim SK, Joung B, Lee MH, Kim YH, Pak HN. Impaired mobilization of bone marrow derived CD34 positive mononuclear cells is related to the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation. International journal of cardiology. 2013 Jan 20;162(3):179-83.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/38733C41F48DA61A5C33D455D5C33A
It looks like another clear misconduct by Hui-Nam Pak. Are Korean academics really tolerant of plagiarism and duplicate publication?
Is there any serious misconduct issue here? It looks only few sentences are overlapping and the paper itself is terrific. Why do people disparage Pak’s papers in prestigious peer-reviewed journals? Very interesting.
It’s hard to understand why prominant physician-scientists like Prof. Pak survived with academic dishonesty over a long period of time.
The result sections are significantly overlapping and this is clearly a scientific misconduct. If a student committed such cheating, (s)he would of course receive strong disciplinary action, such as expulsion. This is not a matter of authority. Dr. Pak will also have to apply strict ethical standards. The journal may consider an expression of concern or retraction, if necessary.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/38733C41F48DA61A5C33D455D5C33A
Duplicate publication is not a victimless crime. If the two publications reporting the same study are incorporated into a meta-analysis, they can bias the results as the same patients are being counted twice. This can affect conclusions about medical care: potentially lives are at stake.
It is also unfair and wasteful: two slots for papers are taken up with one person’s work, excluding some other person who has novel and potentially valuable work. If you sit on two seats on the bus, and I have to stand up as a result, I have a legitimate complaint.
Finally, it is reasonable to be concerned that if a researcher will lie to a journal–signing a statement that says “This work has not been published or submitted elsewhere” when it is not true–they may lie in other regards as well. That is not a “white lie”. That is covering up rule breaking for your own personal benefit.
Trying to respond to these complaints by attacking the whistleblowers is absolutely despicable. I hope the people posting here do not represent Dr. Pak.
Dual submission (publication) is just one of the problems, how do you comment about large numbers of scientific misconduct?
There should be no question that if data is falsified or statistics are wrong, it has to be addressed; and people who draw attention to these errors are heros who may literally save patients’ lives.
I couldn’t agree more with your point!
I’m a former trainee under Professor Hui-Nam Pak. I still remember how Professor Pak heartfully cared about his trainees, colleagues, and patients. He always conducts comprehensive basic and clinical research to improve his Afib patients’ outcomes. Professor Pak is a prominent and established cardiac electrophysiologist, teacher, leader, and medical missionary. I also want to emphasize that he learned rigorous research practices from Professor Peng-Sheng Chen at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and published a lot of groundbreaking papers. I feel sorry about this circumstance, because this issue was not considered serious ethical problems in Korean medical society. I really hope people do not blame Professor Pak. I also wish there’ll be no more whistleblowers who try to attack his fame.
Unfortunately, this is not the end……
I think Prof Pak, himself, had already envisioned this circumstance, but he cannot do anything.
Research misconduct in medicine could directly or indirectly affect evidence-based clinical practice. Dr. Pak must have learned research ethics at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. It is curious why such a well-trained person made scientific misconduct of (at least) two papers.
Professor Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD is a world-renowned and established physician-scientist. I can’t understand why some trainees reported his prominent works. Trainees are trainees. Do NOT blame his works without publishing papers in high impact-factor cardiology journal.
Wow, your comment is so impressive.
High impact-factor journal? How about Nature, Cell or JAMA?
Even in these journals, scientific falsified and academic cheatings were exposed in high-cited articles. And these high-IF cheating articles really destroy the development of medical research.
So, investigations should more focus on these so-called high-IF journals than others.
Yes, I agree with you, Avison. I don’t know why under-trained people blame other’s research. I feel sorry about this circumstance. Of note, this was not considered serious misconduct in Korean medical academia. Professor Pak must be respected as a leading physician-scientist like before.
Seems like you are a EP in Korea. If what you say is reality, the Korean medical circle truly has a long way to go.
Professor Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD’s groundbreaking work published in Circulation (IF 39). I hope people will remember how Professor Pak has advanced the cardiac electrophysiology field.
Pak HN, Oh YS, Liu YB, Wu TJ, Karagueuzian HS, Lin SF, Chen PS. Catheter ablation of ventricular fibrillation in rabbit ventricles treated with beta-blockers. Circulation. 2003 Dec 23;108(25):3149-56. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000104563.12408.12. Epub 2003 Dec 1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14656917/
High IF score? And, so what?
There have been a lot of academic cheating in high IF journals, like Nature and Cell. Moreover, Who can guarantee that high IF papers written by Professor Pak were clean in this situation?
Of course, ethical level and “academic culture” may vary from one Korean university to another. But regarding Yonsei University, I would recommend extra caution. It is on my radar due to another notable researcher, with this PubPeer record:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=authors%3A%22zhixiong+li%22
The Yonsei University Medical School dates to April 10, 1885, when the first modern hospital to practice Western medicine in Korea, Gwanghyewon, was established. Yonsei University is truly a history of modern Korean medicine. Yonsei ranked 73rd in QS World University Rankings 2023, and 1st among private universities (12th overall) in QS Asia University Rankings 2023. Yonsei University is founded on Christian principles. I hope people do not criticize the credential of Yonsei University and its medical school.
Pak, the shame of Yonsei and Korea University.
Dr. Hui-Nam Pak (박희남 교수님) also received the 2018 Yuhan Medical Award (유한의학상), which is considered a quasi-Nobel Prize in Korea, for his groundbreaking discovery of atrial fibrillation susceptibility variants in the Korean population. Surprisingly, the retracted work was related to the same research topic. This chaotic situation makes my heart ache. I hope the situation will be resolved soon.
What? The prize whay you say should be absolutely retracted from Dr. Pak, it is a shame on Korean medical circle.
Yes, Prof. Hui-Nam Pak should have deserved the (quasi-)Nobel Prize and he was truly the Einstein in the atrial fibrillation field. Some immoral whistleblowers seemed to ruin his outstanding career. Prof. Pak is irreplaceable.
Why on earth are the whistleblowers the ones who are immoral, not the person committing misconduct?
Perhaps, “omertà” is a Korean word…?
I think this is because these papers have no serious research integrity problems and Dr. Pak may be innocent. I think whistleblowing is malicious unprofessional behavior in medical academia.
I hope you’re never my doctor with that cavalier attitude towards integrity.
Aspiring doctor: Yeah, maybe Pak’s cheating papers are professional.
Dr. Oransky, I am bemused by the number of pseudonymous commenters lying about scientific norms. Is this a bot infestation, or is someone trying to gaslight readers into thinking that loyalty to an individual, rather than to the truth, is a high scientific value? If I was doing unethical acts such as producing papers with impossible data, or duplicate papers, I hope that my students or colleagues would be strong enough to push back. Anything else is fraud and a sin against science.
Hierarchy is important in the medical field. Maintenance of secrets/privacies in medical research and clinical practice is essential under HIPAA law. I don’t know the details but the whistleblowers may violate the common norm of the medical society and HIPAA law.
Yeah, you really don’t know the details. At all.
Joseph, apparently you are Pak.
Actually, this is true in the US as well. Whistleblowing is considered career-ending behavior in medical academia.
And that is appalling and a betrayal of our professional ethics. Fortunately, most universities have developed whistleblower protection policies.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-99435-2_5
It’s hard to understand why prominant physician-scientists like Prof. Pak survived with academic dishonesty over a long period of time.
Prof. Hui-Nam Pak, MD, PhD is continuously publishing his senior authored-papers in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. This is definitely reasonable evidence to prove his innocence of research misconduct. Why detractors are maliciously attacking academic reputation of this innocent prominent professor (H-index 48).
– Choi SH, Yu HT, Kim D, Park JW, Kim TH, Uhm JS, Joung B, Lee MH, Hwang C, Pak HN. Late recurrence of atrial fibrillation 5 years after catheter ablation: predictors and outcome. Europace. 2023 Apr 26:euad113. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad113. PMID: 37099677.
(Europace: Impact Factor 5.4)
“prestigious peer-reviewed journals”. The same journals that retracted two of his papers due to scientific misconduct? Or do you mean “prestigious friends/colleagues-reviewed journals”?
Atropine:
In author list of the article you called published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, Hui-Nam Pak is not the corresponding author, but Hee-tae Yu.
So, I am wondering why Hui-Nam Pak can’t be the corresponding author, can you explain?
Europace. 2023 Apr 26:euad113. doi: 10.1093/europace/euad113. PMID: 37099677.
I also would like to pin out the most recent corrigendum made by Hui-Nam Pak who is the corresponding author.
https://doi.org/10.1113/JP284816
https://pubpeer.com/publications/35C322E778B28A435B34BAE0FFFFC9
H-index of 48 is amazing! There is no correlation between a high H-index and conducting clean research. Is it a “Harmful index” for a fraud researcher?
There are a lot of interesting comments on this RW post. Yonsei University, funding agencies, and Korean research integrity community should deal with this misconduct issue seriously and take appropriate action. Authorities should not cover the truth in academia.
I am astonished about a number of totalitarian and patriotic comments. Is this the culture of Korean academia?
Yet, many established academics try to cover up their misconduct to maintain hierarchy and privilege. This is sad truths of Korean academia. I think Professor Pak’s story is just the tip of the iceberg.
Several comments mentioned Korea’s research culture. When I did research visits in Korea, some Korean researchers seemed to have a wrong ethical perception about authorship. People whose parents were professors or heavy drinkers along with PIs often became co-authors or even first authors of big papers without doing anything. Drinking and hanging out with PIs seemed more important to them than doing good science. This kind of misconduct in Korea was highlighted in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03371-0
Professor Hui-Nam Pak has been promoted to Vice President of the Korean Heart Rhythm Society (KHRS).
http://www.k-hrs.org/ENGContents.asp?LoadPage=ENG_Committees