A cardiologist in Pakistan has been selling coauthorship of his research papers to scientists, particularly medical students, who were not involved in the work, Retraction Watch has learned. Several of his articles were published after the journal learned of his underhand activities.
Jahanzeb Malik, of the Rawalpindi Institute of Cardiology, publishes in a variety of journals, including Current Problems in Cardiology and Cardiology in Review, with a number of co-authors on each study.
However, not all of these authors contributed to the work. Malik, who is also a member of the Cardiovascular Analytics Group, an international network of researchers, runs a WhatsApp messaging group titled “Research Associates,” where he posts about articles he is working on and offers authorship “slots” in exchange for money, messages shown to Retraction Watch reveal. He has advertised on the “United States Medical Licensing Examination Pakistan” Group Facebook page, writing that he runs the group to “help students and other doctors in doing medical research and writing research papers.”
Going by the username “Darklord” on WhatsApp, Malik charges up to $300 for a first-author position. Less prominent positions on the manuscript can be bought for around $150. Malik has since changed his username to “Dr. Jahanzeb Malik” on the app.
Asked about his response to these allegations, Malik told Retraction Watch:
We are not selling author positions; all my coauthors are contributing according to the ICMJE criteria. Junior authors write all papers so they can learn and move ahead in manuscript writing. We only share funding when opting for an open-access journal.
This type of group, known as a “paper mill,” has become increasingly common as academics and medical students have faced pressure to publish. A six-month Retraction Watch investigation published last month suggested the dean of the faculty of health sciences at Universidad Fernando Pessoa-Canarias in Spain, Dionisio Lorenzo Lorenzo Villegas, bought his way onto nearly all of the papers he published last year.
Among more than 40 of the scientific articles advertised in Malik’s WhatsApp group over the past year, at least 13 have been published. The researcher appears as a coauthor on more than half of these, including:
- Safety and Efficacy of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Iron Deficiency; Current Problems in Cardiology
- Role of Positive Emotions in Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy; Current Problems in Cardiology
- Coronary Stent Infection: A Systematic Review of Literature; Cardiology in Review
A source who requested anonymity to avoid potential backlash from the authors in the papers learned about the group through a friend. After joining, the source reported Malik’s behavior to the editor-in-chief of Current Problems in Cardiology, Hector O. Ventura, as well as its publisher Elsevier on October 15, 2023. Josie Liu, an associate publisher at Elsevier, wrote back saying the team took the concerns seriously and asked to allow “some time to closely investigate the issue.”
Since then, however, Malik has published four papers in the Elsevier title Current Problems in Cardiology. One of them matches a paper “Darklord” advertised on WhatsApp.
Liu told the whistleblower on January 15 that Elsevier’s ethics team has been investigating the case and would “flag Dr. Jahanzeb Malik in the submission system.”
Asked for comment, an Elsevier spokesperson told us:
We are aware of the situation and our ethics and research integrity teams are indeed investigating. It is our policy to not comment on on-going investigations.
We also reached out to Ventura, the editor of Current Problems in Cardiology, but did not receive a response.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
For sure, extort $300 is the most beautiful way of “helping students and other doctors” in a country where average monthly wages are around $260 and 36% of the population is below the poverty line.
The “help” is only available for rich kids 😉
Most papermills don’t reveal the title of the article in a public forum. They just vaguely say the field of the paper and the author positions to be sold. Only when they are confident the buyer is serious and IDed, they reveal the title only to that potential buyer who has already disclosed his identity.
As long as such journals prefer money over ethics, this problem will persist or even worsen, no matter how much sleuths expose such papermills.
The problem should be fixed from the journal side. Journals can easily screen the number of authors against estimated effort as well as author contributions, etc, and ask serious questions if there is a big gap between the amount of work needed for a paper versus the number of authors. A few journals do that now. But others don’t care.
If journals wanted (only if), many forms of fraud would seriously rooted. For example, journals can ask for ALL the documents together with the article, including the thesis itself (in the original language [we have online translators right?], the data, photographs and footage that show the authors have really collected those data, and anything else. Journals can easily treat each manuscript as a case of suspicion. Journals can impose much more serious penalties for fraud. Etc Etc. Only then, people will become wary of cheating. Of course, they could still fabricate data, but would be much wary of the consequences. Besides, data fabrication would become more difficult.
Once I was the editor of a high-impact journal handling a very terrible systematic review of 8 studies only (without any meta), which had 14 authors on it. I told the journal staff about it, saying that we (the journal) should act against such cases of fraud more strictly. They didn’t care, telling me we don’t mind a high number of authors. Of course I fast-rejected it due to being a terrible paper, but if it was good, the journal would not care about the number of authors being 14 or 40 or 4000. It would publish it no matter how many so-called authors were on it.
I have been working with this doctor for over a year and he never asked for money for author positions. Only distributed work among us and got us through.
Sure, sure.
I am disgusted by the habit “east of the mediterranean” of starting PhD’s processes by writing a review. Those reviews, written by hopeful (but not necessarily enlightened) students, with little or no involvement of “seniors”, are worse than useless, often damaging.
Selling “authorships” elevates the issues with reviews to uncharted territories.
By the way, is it a coincidence that you share your surname with Jahanzeb?
Yes we re not related and i maintain my statement as i know him since our medical school days
Making this comment will lead your research papers to scrutiny. Be careful.
Thos is a farse as i was never asked for compensation except doing rigorous working on a couple of papers. Thanks
Asmara maintains that she has not paid, you maintain that you have not paid to Jahanzeb Malik for the privilege of publishing alongside him. Does that prove that he has not collected from others? If YOUR answer is yes, please take a course in logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
What is your proof that he has??
A scientist would know what can be proved, apparently you cannot
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/understanding-science-101/the-core-of-science-relating-evidence-and-ideas/#:~:text=Correction%3A%20Science%20neither%20proves%20nor,Read%20more%20about%20it.
I think one cannot afford the rates written in this article as it is targeting a very good colleague of mine who has produced very good students and is a very meticulous mentor for young doctors. I think he could have taken charges to share the burden of open access publications as in Pakistan we do not have the luxury of funding.
In the collaborative process of naming a manuscript, inclusivity and fairness are paramount. He ensured that all authors had an opportunity to contribute to this crucial decision, recognizing the significance of each individual’s perspective and input. Initially, he organized a brainstorming session where all authors were invited to propose potential titles for the manuscript. This session fostered creativity and allowed everyone to share their ideas freely.
Following the brainstorming session, he implemented a democratic voting system to narrow down the list of proposed titles. Each author was given an equal opportunity to vote for their preferred title, ensuring that no voice was marginalized or overlooked. This voting process promoted transparency and collective decision-making, as the title with the most votes was selected as the final choice.
Furthermore, he facilitated open discussions among the authors to address any concerns or preferences regarding the chosen title. This ensured that the decision was made collaboratively and that everyone felt heard and respected throughout the process.
Cool. So why were authorship offered for sale? And, given that aspect constitutes a fraud, how can we trust that those praising Dr. Malik are not also frauds, or entirely fictional?
I think Retraction Watch has lost its integrity when going after people without any solid proof of money exchange; just giving author slots isn’t selling them and making others work is entirely ethical.
“Giving author slots” without payment too is fraud and unethical.
People must EARN their authorship by substantial contribution to the research in accordance with the ICMJE criteria. Nobody is allowed to hand out author slots like candy either out of kindness or for money or in exchange for his own name appearing on the other person’s article.
Dr. Jahanzeb Malik posted these articles for sell for authorship position https://imgur.com/a/SQc7QkA and soon after this story, turned on disappearing messages in his group. https://imgur.com/a/2hGLd2j
Why did he turn on disappearing messages?
Where is it written that it is for sale??
It doesn’t matter. Why should a researcher invite new authors for his already-finished article? For sale or not for sale, this is fraud.
Because the article is his property and he can do with it what he wants. Plus the authors in question were doing work like i did.
Waleed Abbasi said: “Because the article is his property and he can do with it what he wants. ”
Me: Nope, he can’t. He can do with it only the things that the publishing journal, COPE, and ICMJE (and other involved governing bodies) allow him to do. And adding redundant authors is not one of them.
“To do what one wants” is one of the most serious forms of scientific misconduct: To ignore the law and do what you want.
—————————
Waleed Abbasi said: “Plus the authors in question were doing work like i did.”
Me: The “work” must be SUBSTANTIAL; otherwise, it doesn’t qualify the person for authorship. If any smallest work would count, then anyone who has typed one word within a paper would be eligible for authorship because he has done “work”!
Authors who join an already finished paper CAN’T do substantial work, because the article is already finished leaving no room for substantial contributions. So no, they were not eligible. They must have been only thanked in the Acknowledgements section.
If your role was as trivial as theirs, then your own name is not eligible for authorship as well and you should have been merely acknowledged as a non-author contributor.
https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image1-1.jpeg
Agree with you Dr Tariq.
Or us bndy ne jo paise kamay ha unhi paiso se dubara un logo ko khareeda ha jo yaha aa kr uski TC kr rahy ha.
Hm Pakistanio ka aek he motive ha bs,,, k jo gunnah b kr dya, lekin us admit kabi nai krna.
Dr Jahanzaib paper sold out krta ha or mere pass uski conversation majood ha, jis ko chahye aajae.
I know Dr jehanzaib Malik , he have not asked a single penny from co authors . N his work is only to help others
I know him too and he never asked for moneybor compensation
I think he only asked to share the cost of open access publication as the costnof open access is too much for someone residing in a low-income country like pakistan where research funding is hard to get
Firstly, nowadays most open-access journals completely waive the article processing charges for authors from low-income countries; that means 100% discount or FREE of any cost. They also give 50% discount to authors from moderate-income countries. This is the case for most renowned journals. So open-access charge was not even the main concern here.
Secondly, he could simply seek to publish in subscribed and free journals. There are lots of very good journals that don’t take a dime for publishing a paper.
—————————————–
The above 2 points show that the “journal cost” is not a good enough excuse to justify taking money. But let’s ignore them for a moment and IMAGINE that every and ALL journals in the world take lots of money from all authors, even from low-income countries.
Even in that imaginary scenario, legally speaking, he was not allowed to add more authors JUST to share the publication cost with them. Authorship is not only “paying the fees”. Authorship must be earned through SUBSTANTIAL Scientific contribution.
It is totally legal and ethical to share the cost of open access among the already existing authors who have done substantial work and their names are already on the article because they have been really involved within the research.
It is NOT OK, however, to ADD new authors who have done nothing serious just to be able to share the cost with him.
There is an academy advertising recently to support MDs publish:
https://metaanalysis.academy/
It charges.
https://www.youtube.com/@metaanalysis.academy
https://www.instagram.com/metaanalysis.academy/
It is a Boston-based Cardiologist supporting with publishing.
https://www.threads.net/@metaanalysis.academy
linktr.ee/metaanalysis.academy
I cant decide how his firm work.
I dont know about Maliksays turnover, but other cardiologist, Rhanderson Cardoso, based on his website: https://metaanalysis.academy/
charging around 1200USD. Considering that he has over 6000 followers, or maybe in different platforms, we are talking about 7 million USD. What kind of business is this?
Why Cardiologists need publications anyway? in Netherlands we dont need publications for Cardiologists.
No publicity is bad publicity
One other important point about reviews written by Malik and his co authors is that they have no experience in the subjects they have written about. Review papers are usually written by those with experience, research and publications in the field. I read some of his papers in my areas of interest. It becomes quite apparent that these papers are not generated by the use of human mind. These are creation of copy/paste and other techniques of AI. You will find inaccurate conclusions and references. These are published in open access journals and they are also the major culprits. So it is a collaborative effort of the authors and journals. No scientific honesty and integrity. Very unethical and non professional practices regardless of whether he took money or not. However, the proof is in the pudding. The WhatsApp messages do confirm this.
This has changed nowadays. Anyone can write and review anything as long as the research conducted is well enough.
Not all changes are good. Changed times is not always a proper excuse to do whatever we want. We are not sheep to follow the herd off a cliff. Real scientists are bound to practicing discipline, ethics, and integrity irrespective of stupid changes caused by the majority of the society. Real scientists try their best to disallow others from lowering the standards of scientific progress through cheating, misconduct, and all sorts of mediocrity and triteness –like asking junior students to write review articles or even textbook chapters.
“This has changed nowadays. Anyone can write and review anything as long as the research conducted is well enough.”
Who determines that the paper is written well and worth publishing? It is the editor and the reviewers for peer review journals. No you or me. He is writing in open access journals which actually publish such papers and get money. This is what Paper Mills are. For your information so you know.
Well said! Review articles should be written by EXPERTS not by anyone. I know this guy who gives his undergrad STUDENTS to write book chapters for textbooks he edits for Springer!
The reviews of Jahanzeb are not mediocre. They have been written on the standard of any expert. I know his work he chips in too much for a papermill to be called that
You need to understand the topic he writes the review about it and then read and analyze it. Only then you can comment and give an honest opinion. I have done that and will say that it is below mediocre. However, we should not be distracted from the main issues. These are:
1) This is a paper mill to generate fake papers and give authorship for payment.
2) These papers are not the results of well conducted clinical research.
3) Those who pay to be included in authorship are lured to enhance their CV to get promoted or get into a residency program in the U.S. or Europe.
4) The open access journals where these papers have been published, encourage such publications to get paid. Not based on scientific merit.
This practice can be stopped only if the journals have robust screening measures. This does not seems to be the case at this time. Hence this practice is rampant.
Exactly! IMO the main and perhaps the only key to fighting papermills and any other misconduct is the journals, and journals only. As long as there are journals and publishers that don’t care about misconduct and publish anything, such below-mediocre people will continue to cheat and publish their BS.
Perhaps sleuths should focus more on exposing journals and publishers who don’t care strictly about their authors’ misconduct.
A student has to start somewhere
He too says that, thinking of himself as a supportive professor who let’s his students grow and thrive!
The so-called “reasoning” you and he are both using is like asking a junior med student to do a sophisticated brain surgery which needs decades of study and practice; when people complain, you reply “A student has to start somewhere”!
This means that you and that other guy lack the mental capacity to distinguish between an ultra intricate and important task like brain surgery from the most beginner forms of surgery like suturing, calling both of them “somewhere”.
The outcome is terrible brain surgeries done by junior students, dead or disabled patients, and the loss of public trust in brain surgery.
Translate the above brain surgery allegory into the topic at hand: book chapter or review articles written by irrelevant and uneducated LAYPEOPLE.
A doctor is not a layperson; he or she can begin to understand at least the theory behind brain surgery.
100% agree with you.
I am also a Pakistani and I am admit it.
Rabia: “A doctor is not a layperson; he or she can begin to understand at least the theory behind brain surgery.”
Such an irrelevant answer shows that you did not understand one bit of my comment. Bravo!
Rabia: “A doctor is not a layperson; he or she can begin to understand at least the theory behind brain surgery.”
Such an irrelevant answer shows that you did not understand one bit of my comment. Bravo!
I will add that it indicates the level is even below mediocracy.
Current Problem of cardiology use to be a decent journal. Now its just a paper mill. It will accept anything. I have seen so many poorly conducted studies. I wont be surprise if it turns out to another Cureus.
That is why its IF dropped from 14 to only 3 and something