The journal Scientific Reports removed a scientist linked to paper mill activity from its editorial board last year, but didn’t take his name off the web page until last month, after a Retraction Watch-Undark story pointed out his association.
The former editorial board member, Masoud Afrand, is an assistant professor of engineering at the Islamic Azad University in Iran.
In our story, Alexander Magazinov, a scientific sleuth and software engineer based in Kazakhstan, cited Afrand as an example of researchers seemingly associated with paper mills who manage to get editorial positions at reputable journals. Afrand, he said:
was likely part of a paper mill operation for a special issue in Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, where Afrand was cited over 130 times.
At the time our story was published, on June 21, Afrand was listed as an editorial board member for mechanical engineering at Scientific Reports, a Springer Nature title.
About a week later, a commenter noted that Afrand was no longer on the website, although he had been in a snapshot of the webpage from June 20 in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
Magazinov replied that he had emailed the journal about Afrand on May 31, 2022. He wrote:
Why it should take a dedicated journalist to get things done, is beyond my understanding.
Rafal Marszalek, chief editor of Scientific Reports, told us that while Afrand had been listed as an editorial board member on the website, the journal had “parted ways” with him in March 2022. An internal audit earlier that year had uncovered “irregularities” in how Afrand handled papers, and the journal made its decision “after an in-depth investigation following due process.”
As far as the recent update to the website, he said:
Unfortunately, due to an oversight, Masoud was still listed as an Editorial Board Member on the Scientific Reports website for more than a year after his departure. The recent Retraction Watch article brought this error to our attention and we have since removed his name.
Afrand has not responded to our request for comment.
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].
Moral lesson: if you are not white forget to be an editorial. Being an editorial and get citations is solely for white people.
No, the moral lesson is not to be immoral. Did you note the journal itself had found irregularities in how he handled papers? And that they had parted with him before they were even contacted by Magazinov?
Were editorial taking a nap when all these happened? Who is SR editorial anyway?
Megajournals have this problem, just like very large organizations: it gets really hard to keep track of things. But clearly they already noted problematic behavior before Magazinov contacted them, but then someone forgot to push the button “remove editor from site”.
This is a serious claim. Any proof?
1) Wiley is still hesitant to publish their “special issue” in print (editors: HM Sedighi, AJ Chamkha, HM Ouakad, R Barretta, T Rabczuk, A Abdelkefi).
2) Here’s a spreadsheet of 94 papers that likely belong to the SI: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bKCUsvKqTGJ554yuk8OiidNCbYNwyAGzt28odFBnftQ/edit?usp=sharing
These papers belong to te SI with various certainty (green & blue: unambiguously confirmed; purple: overwhelmingly likely; orange: very likely). The total number (94) is out of doubt, as it was communicated by Wiley.
3) What you can do next is to follow a Dimensions link in the “Citations ref” column of the spreadsheet, e.g., https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?or_subset_publication_references=pub.1125400133, and download the excel with search results. Then you can analyze the excel files, particularly, the authors of the cited papers. After I followed this procedure, and after merging different spelling of the authors’ names, I got the following citation counts for the top recipients:
Chamkha, Ali J. 348
He, Ji-Huan 189
Sedighi, Hamid M. 152
Afrand, Masoud 132
Ghalambaz, Mohammad 119
Karimipour, Arash 95
Sheremet, Mikhail A. 87
Pop, Ioan 80
Safaei, Mohammad Reza 80
Sheikholeslami, M. 78
Ganji, D.D. 73
Mehryan, S.A.M. 73
Kalbasi, Rasool 63
Menni, Younes 62
Ouakad, Hassen M. 60
This is indeed a pattern of a citation farm.
4) More details were told to Undark, on which they performed their own fact checking. It is at their discretion if they want to share more info.
5) My earlier post on the background of the Wiley case (June 27, 2022) is here: https://forbetterscience.com/2022/06/27/wiley-committed-to-integrity-get-out/
Ji-Huan He is still doing this?
Some of us remember when the president of SIAM very publicly called out his citation manipulation in 2009: https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~arnold/siam-columns/integrity-under-attack.pdf
I reported a similar Editor of a renowned journal who seemingly tried to inflate his H-index and citation count by abusing the authors. They are investigating this.
(1) Iranians are White (i.e., Caucasians).
But if you ignorantly mean “White from a European Ancestry”, then:
(2) I know many Iranians who reside in Iran too, but are editors of multiple renowned journals. Some with impact factors like 16.
(3) Scientific misconduct has no relevance to ethnicity.
Two questions are outstanding for me, though:
1) Why Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements hired Afrand as editor in March 2023? (Also, there are a few other simultaneous questionable decisions in the same journal.)
2) Why Abdessattar Abdelkefi, associated with the same papermilling act at Wiley, is still an editor of SciRep?
(1) because he’s got a demonstrable track record of being a proactive editor with a can-do attitude capable of attracting a lot of submissions and meeting publishing targets set by the publisher
(2) see (1)
Apparently, there is little concern about quality or even authenticity of the submissions / acceptances on the side of the publishers. Don’t you see this as a problem?
If you are sarcastic, then your comment makes sense, of course.
more cynical than sarcastic, yes, but it’s truly representative of publishers’ perspective — commercial ones at least
an editor brings in a 100 extra papers from a papermill, publisher collects APCs, everyone’s happy
if you notice this and make enough noise, they simply kick that editor from the board and put out generic statements like:
we were not aware
we’ve been bamboozled
we’re reviewing our internal policies
we’re strongly committed to integrity in science
maybe even retract a bunch of papers — they already got paid so it doesn’t matter to them really
there’s literally ~0 risk of reputational or any other kind of damage for a publisher acting that way, and the productive editor simply moves on to a different journal’s board
All major publishers (and even minor ones) should have a shared blacklist for rotten Editors, Reviewers, and Authors.
They should sign a treaty that says: If a scholar (author/reviewer/editor) was blacklisted by a journal for ANY kind of major scientific misconduct, they should be banned for a long time (20 years to life!) by ALL journals from doing ANY research activity (publishing, reviewing, or editing) in ANY other journal.
For example, if an editor was fired, he should be banned from editing, reviewing, and even publishing in any other journal for the next 20 years.
This way, no author/editor/reviewer dares to commit scientific misconduct, because there will be REAL, fitting consequences.
The journal of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements (EABE) was alerted of the posting at the Retraction Watch about one of its editorial board members, Masoud Afrand, accusing him of unethical publication conduct. As this was a serious accusation, the journal requested Afrand to resign from the Board. He kindly agreed. The publisher has been informed of the decision.
The accusations by the Retraction Watch were:
1. By analyzing citations of a journal special issue, it was found that Afrand received 132 citations out of 94 articles. It was accused that Afrand practiced a “paper mill” strategy to enhance his citation record.
2. This behavior was reported to the Scientific Report, where Afrand served as a topic editor. The journal later parted away with him, “due to detected irregularities in the researcher’s handling of papers”, according to Retraction Watch.
As these accusations were serious, the journal is obliged to conduct an investigation of its own. The following are the findings:
1. Afrand receives a large number of citations, more than 20,000 by Google Scholar, in his 9-year career after Ph.D., and 15 as assistant professor. Eighty of his publications received more than 100 citations. Analyzing the highest cited paper with 379, the first 50 shows that 4 were self-cited. The self-citation rate is low.
2. Afrand guest edited a special issue for EABE on “Computational approaches in multiphase simulation of nanofluids in multiphysics systems”. He himself did not publish a single paper in the issue, though he published 4 papers in the journal.
3. The special issue contains 56 papers: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/engineering-analysis-with-boundary-elements/special-issue/10QV09LJ40D. Scanning the first 10 papers for citation of Afrand’s papers reveals the following: 0(34), 2(28), 1(26), 2(29), 0(26), 0(27), 3(36), 2(27), 1(27), 1(29), in which the numbers in the parentheses are the total number of papers cited in each article. These are not out of the ordinary.
4. His editorial work was monitored by the editor-in-chief. As the editor-in-chief, I did not find any irregularities on his work.
In conclusion, concerning Afrand’s editorial work for EABE, the special issue was not an effective way for him to boost his citations, particularly in view of his very high citation record. His editorial conduct has been honorable, and I find no fault in it. The journal regrets that due to the bad publicity, justified or unjustified, we have asked Afrand to step down. He gracefully agreed.
Alex Cheng, EiC, EABE
Dr. Alex Cheng,
These are the top citation recipients out of the first 44 papers of your special issue:
136 Li, Changhe
102 Zhang, Yanbin
80 Yang, Min
72 Said, Zafar
69 Afrand, Masoud
67 Ali, Hafiz Muhammad
56 Jia, Dongzhou
54 Öztop, Hakan F.
50 Selimefendigil, Fatih
47 Sharifpur, Mohsen
I invite you to re-assess these stats. I also invite you to assess the relevance of citations to Changhe Li in each case: as best as I can tell, the relevant ones are extremely rare if exist at all.
But then again, will you pay attention to Nader Karimi? (For some reason even misspelled as Karami on your journal’s page.) The man who raked in 504 citations from a 87-paper-strong “special issue” in Journal of Energy Storage. (This might or might not have contributed to removal of the then-EiC.)
See https://forbetterscience.com/2022/08/23/maybe-stop-accepting-submissions-herr-prof-dr-sauer/ for the J Energy Storage story.
Relevant professors get relevant citations, this is essential and natural. The lack of citations, now that, would be an issue.
I thought it was the specific work itself -and not its authors- that had to be relevant in order to be merit a citation. I will say this though: Intentionally leaving out relevant citations, also known as ‘citation amnesia’, IS a serious issue and a bit more difficult to discern.
I agree that it takes more than a list with numbers to make the issues clear. The ‘most cited researchers’ in the above list are additionally somewhat famous on PubPeer. Take the top scoring Changhe Li:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Changhe
At least the first 40 papers are about out-of-context citations to works of Changhe Li, often in combination with tortured phrases. Li is somewhat like a canary in a coalmine, but then to detect citation plantations.
Since search results change some concrete examples:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/625C1B190ED2B3533628DE67B4B8E4#2
https://pubpeer.com/publications/0146B3F9BC1241DEA18ABA02D6636E
A more general search:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=%22Chang-he+Li%22+OR+%22Changhe+Li%22
And still more general search:
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=%22Chang-he+Li%22+OR+%22Changhe+Li%22+OR+%22a+certain+C+Li%22
Indeed, relevant professors get relevant citations. At te same time, irrelevant professors get irrelevant citations.
To which category the subject of this post belongs, it is up to anyone to decide.
Let me address Afrand first. He was cited 69 times in 44 papers of the special issue that he edited, on average 1.5 citations per article. Is this unusual? Consider the following facts. None of the citations was self-citation (he did not publish in the issue). He is an expert on this subject. He has published extensively on this subject. Although the special issue was open to all, he did send invitations to authors whom he knew. So, is it unusual that he received 1.5 out of say 30 citations? Particularly, is it a “crime” to be pursued that he received so many citations in a special issue?
Next consider Changhe Li, whom I was asked to investigate. He received 136 citations from 44 articles. It is high. But who is Changhe Li? I am not in the field, so I know nothing about him. There is no connection between him and Afrand. Most importantly, he did not publish a single paper is this special issue. For all I know, he may not even know that the special issue exists. So, he could be the criminal of the century who uses the special issue to rack up citations, or he could simply be an excellent researcher. Again, this is not my field and I have no way of telling, and I do not intend to investigate.
So, the issue Dr. Magazinov raised seems to stem from the existence of journal special issue itself. He thinks special issues are instruments for authors to rack up citations, as in Paper Mills. He can prove it by running his algorithm. And it did show. However, let us run an experiment. If we pick 100 papers from a special issue, 100 from a journal, and 100 from all journals, and run the algorithm, which of those will yield the highest concentration of highly cited authors? I don’t think we need to run it. It is obvious that when the topic gets narrowed, particularly as narrow as the special issue, frequently cited individuals will emerge. So, what does it prove? Should one use this single factor to pursue a person, say Changhe Li?
So, does Afrand deserve the notoriety as shown in this page? It is not for me to say. The viewers must decide.
It is my professional opinion that the community will be better served by Editors in Chief if they were to stand up firmly for academic integrity, instead of trying to weasel out of responsibility by vague arguments with the data, and muddying the waters.
Also, why does EABE publish erroneous Iranian paper-mill papers on topics not associated with it? https://pubpeer.com/publications/92A40D28CC86800B23F3757EA3A12A
Perhaps you can take some time to reflect on what has gone so wrong at EABE, instead of arguing with Alexander Magazinov.
“So, he could be the criminal of the century who uses the special issue to rack up citations, or he could simply be an excellent researcher. Again, this is not my field and I have no way of telling, and I DO NOT TEND TO INVESTIGATE.” (emphasis mine).
Is the EiC certain this is the appropriate response? I can very well imagine that the EiC is still naive with respect to the multitude of ways in which scientific citation fraud is committed. It does seem that choosing to stay naive/not investigate is not the way to go.
I could not help noticing that the EABE journal seems to be heading into nanofluids. Before 2021 less than 10 nanofluid papers were published per year. This then became 11 (2021), 50, and 136 (2023H1). The ‘production’ of the journal also increasing , but far less rapidly: 260 (2021), 350: to 400 (2023H1).
The topic of nanofluids is fraught with fraud, with for better science covering quite a few of its ‘key’ authors including Afrand. I got personally upset about a Ali Chamkha, a higly cited nanofluid researcher that as runs his own journal (EiC) complete with citation extortion scheme (https://forbetterscience.com/2023/03/08/bottom-of-the-barrel-nanofluids-chamkha/.
Anyway, it would be good to be a vigilent EiC when moving into nanofluids without being an expert/without being able to tell real from fake.
That MINIMUM QUANTITY LUBRICATION funny stuff is sure relevant. Or not so much?
I am not making these things up, Dan Wang et al. did that.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enganabound.2022.10.020
Several research studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of pin-fin shapes [1–3], splitters [4–7], fin height (or tip clearance) [8–12], fin arrangements [13–18], MCHS [micro-channel heat sinks] geometry [19–20], using phase change materials (PCMs) [21–24], and nanoparticle concentration (φ) on the hydrothermal performance of the MCHSs. In addition, the performance of MCHSs was evaluated by different parameters such as first law and second law efficiencies, performance evaluation criterion (PEC) factor, and the entropy generation analysis [25–29].
[1] Aguirre I, Gonzalez A, Castillo E. Numerical study on the use of shear-thinning nanofluids in a micro pin-fin heat sink including vortex generators and changes in pin shapes. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2022;136:104400.
[2] Zhang Y, Li C, Jia D, Zhang D, Zhang X. Experimental evaluation of the lubrication performance of MoS2/CNT nanofluid for minimal quantity lubrication in Ni-based alloy grinding. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2015;99:19–33.
[3] Yang M, Li C, Zhang Y, Jia D, Zhang X, Hou Y, Li R, Wang J. Maximum undeformed equivalent chip thickness for ductile-brittle transition of zirconia ceramics under different lubrication conditions. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 2017;122:55–65.
[4] Shahsavar A, Yari O, Baniasad Askari I. The entropy generation analysis of forward and backward laminar water flow in a plate-pin-fin heatsink considering three
different splitters. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2021;120:105026.
[5] Huang K, Su B, Li T, Ke H, Lin M, Wang Q. Numerical simulation of the mixing behaviour of hot and cold fluids in the rectangular T-junction with/without an
impeller. Appl Therm Eng 2022;204:117942.
[6] Duan ZJ, Li CH, Zhang YB, Dong L, Bai XF, Yang M, Jia DZ, Li RZ, Cao HJ, Xu XF. Milling surface roughness for 7050 aluminum alloy cavity influenced by nozzle position of nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication. Chin J Aeronaut 2021;34(6): 33–53.
[7] Yang M, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Li B, Jia D, Hou Y, Li R. Research on microscale skull grinding temperature field under different cooling conditions. Appl Therm Eng 2017;126:525–37.
[8] Bhandari P, Prajapati YK. Influences of tip clearance on flow and heat transfer characterstics of open type micro pin fin heat sink. Int J Therm Sci 2022;179:107714.
[9] Xiaoming WANG, Changhe LI, Yanbin ZHANG, Zafar SAID, Sujan DEBNATH, Shubham SHARMA, Min YANG, Teng GAO. Influence of texture shape and arrangement on nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication turning. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 2022;119(1):631–46.
[10] Jia D, Zhang Y, Li C, Yang M, Gao T, Said Z, Sharma S. Lubrication-enhanced mechanisms of titanium alloy grinding using lecithin biolubricant. Tribol Int 2022;
169:107461.
[11] Wu Y, Zhao Y, Han X, Jiang G, Shi J, Liu P, Yamada Y. Ultra-fast growth of cuprate superconducting films: Dual-phase liquid assisted epitaxy and strong flux pinning. Mater Today Phys 2021;18:100400.
[12] Wang Y, Han X, Jin S. MAP based modeling method and performance study of a task offloading scheme with time-correlated traffic and VM repair in MEC systems.
Wirel Netw 2022.
[13] Shahsavar A, Alwaeli AHA, Azimi N, Rostami S, Sopian K, Arıcı M, Estelle P, Nizetic S, Kasaeian A, Muhammad Ali H, Ma Z, Afrand M. Exergy studies in waterbased and nanofluid-based photovoltaic/thermal collectors: Status and prospects.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;168:112740.
[14] Duan Z, Li C, Ding W, Zhang Y, Yang M, Gao T, Cao H, Xu X, Wang D, Mao C, Li HN, Kumar GM, Said Z, Debnath S, Jamil M, Ali HM. Milling force model for aviation aluminum alloy: academic insight and perspective analysis. Chin J Mech Eng 2021;34(1):1–35.
[15] Bai X, Li C, Dong L, Yin Q. Experimental evaluation of the lubrication performances of different nanofluids for minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in milling Ti-6Al4V. Int J Adv Manufact Technol 2019;101(9):2621–32.
[16] Zhang Y, Li HN, Li C, Huang C, Ali H-M, Xu X, Mao C, Ding W, Cui X, Yang M, Yu T, Jamil M, Gupta MK, Jia D, Zafar S. Nano-enhanced biolubricant in sustainable
manufacturing: from processability to mechanisms. Friction 2021;10(6):803–41.
[17] Liu M, Li C, Zhang Y, An Q, Yang M, Gao T, Mao C, Liu B, Cao H, Xu X, Said Z, Debnath S, Jamil M, Ali HM, Sharma S. Cryogenic minimum quantity lubrication
machining: From mechanism to application. Front Mech Eng 2021;16(4):649–97.
[18] Massoudi MD, Hamida MBB, Almeshaal MA, Hajlaoui K. The influence of multiple fins arrangement cases on heat sink efficiency of MHD MWCNT-water nanofluid within tilted T-shaped cavity packed with trapezoidal fins considering thermal
emission impact. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2021;126:105468.
[19] Bhuiya R, Shah N, Arora D, Krishna NV, Manikandan S, Selvam C, Lamba R. Thermal management of phase change material integrated thermoelectric cooler with different heat sink geometries. J Energy Storage 2022;51:104304.
[20] Bhatt H, Bist H, Gola H, Zunaid M. Variation of heat transfer characteristics of a microchannel heat sink with geometry. Mater Today: Proc 2022;56(2):936–42.
[21] Kalbasi R. Introducing a novel heat sink comprising PCM and air – Adapted to electronic device thermal management. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2021;169:120914.
[22] Huang BT, Li CH, Zhang YB, Ding WF, Yang M, Yang YY, Zhai H, Xu XF, Wang DZ, Debnath S, Jamil M, Li HN, Ali HM, Gupta MK, Said Z. Advances in fabrication of ceramic corundum abrasives based on sol–gel process. Chin J Aeronaut 2021; 34(6):1–17.
[23] Yang M, Li C, Luo L, Li R, Long Y. Predictive model of convective heat transfer coefficient in bone micro-grinding using nanofluid aerosol cooling. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 2021;125:105317.
[24] Gao T, Li C, Yang M, Zhang Y, Jia D, Ding W, Debnath S, Yu T, Said Z, Wang J. Mechanics analysis and predictive force models for the single-diamond grain
grinding of carbon fiber reinforced polymers using CNT nano-lubricant. J Mater Process Technol 2021;290:116976.
[25] Lisboa KM, Zotin JLZ, Naveira-Cotta CP, Cotta RM. Leveraging the entropy generation minimization and designed porous media for the optimization of heat sinks employed in low-grade waste heat harvesting. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2021;
181:121850.
[26] Li B, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Jia D, Yang M, Zhang N, Qu Q, Han Z, Sun K. Heat transfer performance of MQL grinding with different nanofluids for Ni-based alloys using vegetable oil. J Cleaner Prod 2017;154:1–11.
[27] Guo S, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Li B, Yang M, Zhang X, Liu G. Experimental evaluation of the lubrication performance of mixtures of castor oil with other vegetable oils in MQL grinding of nickel-based alloy. J Cleaner Prod 2017;140:1060–76.
[28] Wang Y, Li C, Zhang Y, Li B, Yang M, Zhang X, Guo S, Liu G. Experimental evaluation of the lubrication properties of the wheel/workpiece interface in MQL grinding with different nanofluids. Tribol Int 2016;99:198–210.
[29] Shen H, Xie G, Wang CH. Thermal performance and entropy generation of novel Xstructured double layered microchannel heat sinks. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2020; 111:90–104.
commenter ‘ICC’ linked above to an interesting PubPeer thread. It contains amongst others two links to relevant papers that are very critical of the enhanced heat conductivity that is claimed to exist in nanofluids. This enhanced heat conductivity is exactly the why nanofluids were used in the EABE special issue.
1. https://nanoheat.stanford.edu/publication/a-benchmark-study-on-the-thermal-conductivity-of-nanofluids/
A 2009 paper on the result of an international, 30-institutes-strong attempt to experimentally test (or likely dispel) the claimed enhanced heat conductivity of a range of nanofluids. Conclusion: “… no anomalous enhancement of thermal conductivity was achieved in the nanofluids tested in this exercise”.
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0017931017313352
A 2017 paper with the title “ Does mathematics contribute to the nanofluid debate?”. The authors conclude it does not, but that the field is rife with low quality numerical studies containing (repeated) errors leading to the wrong result that nanofluids have greatly enhanced heat conductivity. Or:
“… the goal of this paper is to determine the cause of the disagreement. We will show unequivocally that it arises from a series of errors and incorrect values used in the mathematical models. “
I believe that these serious authers were disgruntled with the amount of low quality papers/rubbish in their field and hence wrote this paper. A bit like these mathematicians and their bat/fruitfly/name your animal optimization field: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-60376-2_10.
Since 2017 the field has continued growing and the authors’ observation that “practitioners of boundary layer theory … have published thousands of papers…” should now read tens of thousands of papers. With a single author like Ali Chamkha already doing a thousand.
My conclusion: there is something very amiss in the field of numerical modelling of nanofluids. And editors should be very critical when considering to fill their pages with it.
This is my final post on this site. The reason is that I do not wish to participate in a discussion conducted in a journalistic style. Not suggesting the posts committed all these below, I consider the journalistic style the following: sensationalism, using partial truth, seeking weakness to attack but avoiding the true issue, lacking introspection… I do not disrespect journalists. It is their field and their way. Without it, journalism may not survive. But for academics, I would like to conduct it the academic way.
In my previous posting, I resisted the baiting of investigating a list of researchers. I gave my reasons. Within the reasons, I questioned whether the assumptions were correct. I also offered a possible explanation that the accused phenomenon can naturally occur. I was hoping for some introspection that can lead to a productive discussion. But rather than challenging the logic of my reasoning, it went to the questioning of my integrity. I now become a center of attention. In their other Internet postings, they are calling “EiC of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements defending Masoud Afrand. Anyone here to offer him a meal he deserves?”. This is far from academic conduct. I will not respond to this team anymore.
Despite the above, it is my duty to explain the journal of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements. If you know what the Boundary Element Method (BEM) is, it was an emerging numerical method in the 70s and 80s. The journal was founded in 1984, 40 years ago to address the method. In my 2005 article “Heritage and early history of the boundary element method”, I argued that the development of most emerging fields would go through an S-curve, that is, an initial exponential growth, followed by an inflection point to a slower growth, and eventually reach to a plateau. The BEM is still exciting nowadays, but it cannot last forever. Many years ago, the journal decided to follow the spirit, rather than the letters, of the journal. The spirit was, and still is, new and emerging numerical methods. So, the journal has been populated by papers of radial basis function, element free Galerkin, SPH, and many other meshless methods. In recent years, we started to experiment on machine learning, particle method, molecular dynamics, … And we should not forget the “Engineering Analysis” part of the title, so there are papers applying numerical methods to biomechanics, finance, nanocomposites, nanofluids, … We admit that it is possible that not all these topics are worthy. The editorial board is being consulted for these directions. The Publisher has already suggested a rewrite of the Scope to make it clearer. It was my fault for not making it happen sooner.
Let me make it clear, I do not defend Afrand. He is punished. I question this team’s conduct. No doubt this statement will draw me new headlines. But there will be no response.
Dr. Cheng, thanks for taking the time to explain these issues. I personally agree with your arguments, explaining (and rationally and properly) justifying how it is possible for an editor of a special issue to get 1.5 citations per paper, in the very field he highly specializes in and noting that many of the papers have been authored by his own friends or colleagues. It is justified for me. And it is OK if you want to *defend* someone who you believe has not really done any misconduct. So don’t bother with the titles of the news. Actually, it is more than OK: the EiCs are ethically obligated to defend an innocent editor who is under unfair backlash. And you did the right thing.
Now Dr. Afrand may be innocent or might have been unfairly cited by some of his friends. However, 1.5 citations per paper are not that high. And it seems that those rotten editors who strive for “citation stacks”, usually get much more than 1.5 per paper.
As constructive feedback, please be so kind as to cancel any special issues, because they are really causes of malpractice and misconduct. If you want to do a special issue, let your own journal’s permanent editors do it. Don’t hand your journal in a silver plate to outsiders, some of whom can be very dubious, opportunistic, and predatory.
I believe any journals should cancel any special issues because predators have found their way into such special issues. Hindawi is already paying for those special issues by retracting more than 1500 papers, canceling some journals, and permanently stopping any special issues (at least for now), not to mention that many of its journals were delisted from the Web of Science.
ps. I believe the scientists or journalists posting comments on Retraction Watch are NOT necessarily a “team” the way you thought. They are most of the time separate individuals who have no connection to each other, and in many cases, even don’t know each other.
This is wrong on so many levels. Let’s deconstruct the argument point-by-point.
Point 1: explaining (and rationally and properly) justifying how it is possible for an editor of a special issue to get 1.5 citations per paper,
Answer 1: Handwaving and aggregating leads nowhere. Let’s have a look at individual cases. Like the example from a few posts earlier.
Several research studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of pin-fin shapes [1–3], splitters [4–7], fin height (or tip clearance) [8–12], fin arrangements [13–18], MCHS [micro-channel heat sinks] geometry [19–20], using phase change materials (PCMs) [21–24], and nanoparticle concentration (φ) on the hydrothermal performance of the MCHSs. In addition, the performance of MCHSs was evaluated by different parameters such as first law and second law efficiencies, performance evaluation criterion (PEC) factor, and the entropy generation analysis [25–29].
[13] Shahsavar A, Alwaeli AHA, Azimi N, Rostami S, Sopian K, Arıcı M, Estelle P, Nizetic S, Kasaeian A, Muhammad Ali H, Ma Z, Afrand M. Exergy studies in waterbased and nanofluid-based photovoltaic/thermal collectors: Status and prospects.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;168:112740.
I checked the referenced paper, co-authored by Afrand, in which “heat sinks” are mentioned exactly zero times, and “fins” exactly once. Is this particular citation appropriate? Not so much, I think.
There is no point in justification of 1.5 citations per paper when the fair amount is zero. Simple as that.
As a side note, why would Afrand be cited like two, three or more times as often as other researchers of similar profile and relevance? (Think of the above mentioned Ali Chamkha, Mohsen Sheikholeslami, Davood Toghraie, etc., etc.)
Point 2: noting that many of the papers have been authored by his own friends or colleagues
Answer 2: COPE has a document on this topic, https://doi.org/10.24318/7cKLAia0. It suggests the following,
Include in the guidelines, and take steps to ensure, that contributions from guest editors and their close colleagues (with close professional or personal relationships) are limited
to a small part of the content of the guest edited collections, to avoid real or perceived competing interests, as well as endogeny and publishing cartels.
And you say, literally: screw all that. It’s normal to submit, review and publish within a close circle of friends (presumably, because otherwise the spam would be non-publishable).
Point 3: However, 1.5 citations per paper are not that high. And it seems that those rotten editors who strive for “citation stacks”, usually get much more than 1.5 per paper.
Answer 3: This is handwaving and averaging again. Do you realize that this is happening right after an another “special issue” where Afrand scooped an average of over 4 citations per paper? Isn’t it possible that Afrand simply decided to tone down his demands temporarily, so as not to attract more attention?
Read about the preceding “special issue” in Elsevier’s J Energy Storage here: https://forbetterscience.com/2022/08/23/maybe-stop-accepting-submissions-herr-prof-dr-sauer/, after which the EiC was removed.
Point 4: As constructive feedback, please be so kind as to cancel any special issues, because they are really causes of malpractice and misconduct.
Answer 4: It doesn’t help if the would-be guest editors are hired to regular editorship. Nader Karimi is still on the editorial board, as well as several other familiar names.
By the way, papers following very familiar templates and citation patterns were published as REGULAR PAPERS in (you guess the publisher!) one journal under the editorship of Jorge de Brito (subsequently removed). De Brito has a dedicated post on Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2022/07/13/engineering-researcher-who-cast-blame-on-co-author-will-soon-have-12-retractions/.
Point 5: I believe any journals should cancel any special issues because predators have found their way into such special issues.
Answer 5: No, special issues are not a problem on their own. Their misuse is a problem. Contracting no-name or even discredited guest editors based only on buzzword-laden proposals is a problem.
Some promising guidelines even used to exist, created by no other journal, but Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, exactly in the wake of their 2020 Chamkha-Sedighi-He-Afrand debacle: https://web.archive.org/web/20211208123453/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/10991476/MMA%20Special%20Issue%20Proposals%20Short%20Guide-1596625101207.pdf. But then Wiley purged those, because, as it seems, there was no profit in this format.
Alexander Magazinov, thanks for your in-depth, meticulous evaluation and answer. My overall response to your comment: I totally agree with you about Masoud Afrand’s scientific misconduct.
I think all journals should create a shared blacklist and a shared watchlist for such occasions.
Moreover, the EiC (Dr. Cheng) should investigate this matter much more carefully. For example, perhaps Dr Cheng wasn’t aware of the “4 citations per paper” of Afrand in the previous special issue. Perhaps if he notices that, he would not defend Afrand anymore.
———————
1. Agreed. The existence of irrelevant citations is serious misconduct, regardless of the average number of citations per paper. Thanks for bringing it to light.
———————
With this, I don’t agree: “There is no point in justification of 1.5 citations per paper when the fair amount is zero. ”
The fair amount is not necessarily zero. An active researcher in the field may be cited (naturally) without any cheating; I am not saying that Afrand has not cheated. But the fair amount is not necessarily zero.
———————
Alexander: “As a side note, why would Afrand be cited like two, three or more times as often as other researchers of similar profile and relevance? (Think of the above mentioned Ali Chamkha, Mohsen Sheikholeslami, Davood Toghraie, etc., etc.)”
— Agreed. You’re right.
———————
Alexander: “Answer 2: COPE has a document on this topic, https://doi.org/10.24318/7cKLAia0. It suggests the following,
Include in the guidelines, and take steps to ensure, that contributions from guest editors and their close colleagues (with close professional or personal relationships) are limited
to a small part of the content of the guest edited collections, to avoid real or perceived competing interests, as well as endogeny and publishing cartels.”
— Didn’t know that. Very interesting and extremely useful in the future. For example, Frontiers invites people to do “Collections” (their name for special issues) and mandates those guest editors to give a list of at least 40 friends or colleagues who can be invited to publish in the special issue.
Your link was very educational.
———————
Alexander: “Answer 3: This is handwaving and averaging again. Do you realize that this is happening right after an another “special issue” where Afrand scooped an average of over 4 citations per paper? Isn’t it possible that Afrand simply decided to tone down his demands temporarily, so as not to attract more attention?”
— Excellent information. I didn’t know that. And it explains a LOT. Now “4 articles per paper” is definitely fishy, and this Afrand guy is dead to me; as rotten as it gets.
I guess you should have said this directly to the EiC a couple of days ago.
———————
Alexander: “Answer 4: It doesn’t help if the would-be guest editors are hired to regular editorship. Nader Karimi is still on the editorial board, as well as several other familiar names. … By the way, papers following very familiar templates and citation patterns were published as REGULAR PAPERS in (you guess the publisher!) one journal under the editorship of Jorge de Brito (subsequently removed).”
— I still believe it helps. When editors are permanent, they need to be much more cautious. Besides, there is no special issue for them to be “in charge of everything” and do anything they like. Many papers authored by their friends will not even be handed to them to handle. So their malicious impact on the content will be attenuated and reduced.
BTW, I do know that some (many?) permanent editors do this too. I reported one of them to BMC a couple of weeks ago.
———————
Alexander: “Answer 5: No, special issues are not a problem on their own. Their misuse is a problem. Contracting no-name or even discredited guest editors based only on buzzword-laden proposals is a problem.”
Yes, I know that but at the same time, we know that special issues are much more likely to get compromised and misused. There are some reasons:
1- Guest editors are not from the journal to feel much responsible for the fate and the quality of the journal.
2- Guest editors are most of the time ROOKIE researchers who actually don’t know what to do. This makes low-quality peer review much more prevalent.
3- Guest editors are not selected properly or carefully.
4- Guest editors are encouraged or even mandated to invite a lot of their friends and colleagues to publish in the special issue.
Overall, most guest editors know almost nothing about publishing or peer reviewing. This is not the case for most regular editors.
Although I am seeing that some renowned publishers have begun to recruit rookie regular editors too. Which is a shame. The reason is apparently something like this:
“But then Wiley purged those, because, as it seems, there was no profit in this format.”
> With this, I don’t agree: “There is no point in justification of 1.5 citations per paper when the fair amount is zero. ”
The disagreement might disappear if “when” is understood as a marker of a conditional clause (that is the meaning I had in mind). We don’t know what the fair amount of citations is; it is most certainly smaller than the actual one. But in a hypothetical case it is zero, there is no point to justify anything higher than that.
Sage retracted 37 papers last week for peer review manipulation, see RW (https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/21/sage-retracting-three-dozen-articles-for-compromised-peer-review). The retracted papers are incidentally all in the field of nanofluids.
Very circumstantial, obviously. But maybe something if a warning sign?