Journal asks scientist to step down from editorial board after sleuth’s comments linked him to paper mill

An engineering researcher has stepped down from an editorial board at the request of a journal’s leadership following a sleuth’s comment on a Retraction Watch post linking him to paper mill activity. 

Masoud Afrand, an assistant professor of engineering at the Islamic Azad University in Iran, was, until recently, on the editorial board of the journal Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements. He also was listed on the website of Scientific Reports as a member of the journal’s editorial board in the subject of mechanical engineering. 

He now has neither position. He has not responded to our requests for comment. 

In our original story with Undark, Alexander Magazinov, a scientific sleuth and software engineer based in Kazakhstan, said Afrand “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.” 

Magazinov had cited Afrand’s association with Scientific Reports as an example of researchers seemingly associated with paper mills attaining editorial roles with reputable journals. 

Following our reporting, Scientific Reports removed Afrand from the webpage with its editorial board members. Rafal Marszalek, its chief editor, told us that the journal had “parted ways” with Afrand in March 2022, after an internal audit uncovered “irregularities” in how he handled papers. Afrand had still been listed on the webpage “due to an oversight,” and the journal updated the page after our story brought attention to it. 

In a comment on our post about Scientific Reports’s move, Magazinov elaborated on the suspicious citation activity he’d found in the special issue that had cited Afrand extensively, calling it “a pattern of a citation farm.” 

In a separate comment, he asked, “Why Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements hired Afrand as editor in March 2023?” 

Earlier this week, Alexander Cheng, the editor in chief of Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements,” responded with a comment on the post, stating the journal had asked Afrand to resign due to the “serious accusation” of “unethical publication conduct.” The researcher “kindly agreed,” he said.  

Cheng’s comment elaborated on the findings of the journal’s investigation into Afrand’s citations and the work he did as a guest editor for a special issue of the journal. “Scanning the first 10 papers” of the 56 in the special issue uncovered a “not out of the ordinary” number of citations of Afrand’s papers, Cheng said. Cheng also said he had monitored Afrand’s editorial work and “did not find any irregularities.” 

Cheng continued: 

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.

In an email to Retraction Watch, Cheng confirmed he had submitted the comment, and said: 

As these are serious accusations and can destroy careers, we need to be careful in delivering the punishment to whom is due. I am neutral in the process. I only comment on the journal’s relation with Afrand.

Magazinov replied to Cheng’s comment on our post with the results of his analysis of the citations in 44 of the special issue papers, which found 69 citations to Afrand’s work. Others had received even more citations.

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].