A group of researchers in Iran now have had more than 60 papers retracted for concerns about peer review and plagiarism as a publisher investigates its back catalog. One of the researchers, A. Salar Elahi, now ranks 7th on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard.
Previously, Elsevier said they would retract 26 papers from the research group at Islamic Azad University in Tehran for fake reviews in 2017 and 2018. The latest batch of 33 retracted papers originally appeared in Springer Nature’s Journal of Fusion Energy as far back as 2009.
Tim Kersjes, head of research integrity at Springer Nature told us in addition to investigating specific concerns as they arise, his unit also is running “ongoing deep-dive investigations to assess published content that has connections with content that has already been retracted for integrity concerns by ourselves or other publishers.” The recent retractions came from such an investigation that is ongoing, he said.
The retraction notices state an investigation by Springer Nature found problems “including but not limited to peer review concerns” and “significant overlap” with other published works.
The authors did not respond to correspondence regarding the retractions, the notices stated. Elahi and co-authors K. Mikaili Agah and S. Meshkani also did not respond 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].
You might consider moderating your tone when you write about the retraction. A present, your tone is one of enthusiam, almost glee: Whoopi we caught another one! Such fun. Like pinball, he went tilt.
Thanks. Now I will always associate 70 retractions with the sound of a pinball machine, which is, indeed, rather fitting: http://www.videvo.net/sound-effect/pinball-05/435929/#rs=audio-title
A D what tone should they take. An occasional retraction is regrettable, but 70? That’s clearly planned gaming of the system, and I think glee at the unwinding of the scheme is appropriate to be honest.
If I were you I would ask about the reason. What is Elsevier’s role in this? And why are you so eager to ruin someone’s reputation instead of fixing the system.
Clearly the scientist not following ethical guidelines is the one ruining his reputation. Discovering this and bringing it to the attention of the scientific world is the duty of any honest researcher. And yes we should celebrate each time someone with such unethical conduct is caught.
It’s easy for everyone to talk, especially when they have a lot of funding. Research has suffered greatly in the last few years due to funding issues and infrastructure issues, especially in countries other than the western countries. And researchers do need to eat and survive. So they resort to this. Why not fix the main problem than mock people who game the system? It’s set up as if we are to fail.
WOW! Don’t mock the thief. Thieves are hungry and need to eat; they are innocent victims of an evil system that has made them hungry. Be compassionate to criminals. Instead, blame it on the system. I am a stupid Woke Marxist.
This person should not be MOCKED. He should be JAILED for 20 years.
Yes, the system is flawed. But the root problem is, there shouldn’t be that many “researchers” in the world to begin with. On a second thought, it’s really weird to do research as a way to secure my income, especially when said income is offered only when the results are “good”. If I find myself have to resort to unethical conducts to survive in the academics, I should consider finding another job rather than faking anything.
As a former researcher from Iran, I simply stopped publishing.
It is almost impossible to ethically conduct reliable research in Iranian Academia.
I am not saying that there is no one researcher in Iran who has conducts studies ethically. What i am saying is that there is a huge systemic issue with plagiarism, faking data or not crediting authors ( similar to other places, however here it is not regulated and there is no consequences to unethical actions).
sanctions have also greatly affected our access to lab equipment or material. Because our currency has lost it’s value, the funding for research is basically nothing. researchers will often have to not use personal protection just to save up on costs. I personally got 200 dollars for my thesis work, which included synthesis of a substance, characterization of this substance, giving it to animal models, doing behavioral, molecular and pathology tests. with 200 dollars? one doesn’t have to look that far to see how things don’t fit together.
This is such an issue that researchers have become used to this low level of standard for conducting research, and to most of them it doesn’t register as unethical, unprofessional, or even a lie. And with the regime being very unaccepting of any criticism, those who know what’s happening, don’t speak up. Because we all like our heads attached to our bodies.
So your choices are fooling the scientific community in your field, or just not doing research anymore and giving up on your dreams.
I have been following Retraction Watch, for quite a period. And so a couple of other social media accounts doing similar stuff.
This is very important work. And someone needs to do the cleaning. Cleaning that Universities, academics, publishers, and journals are supposed to be doing. Because this dirt is created by their enterprise.
Doctoral students and guides, need to sign up for a pledge -about do’s and don’t. And they shall be educated about what is not acceptable and what is acceptable in the research and publishing.
This information is lacking. In my whole doctoral journey, there wasn’t a single session, single paper, or single course explaining this nor any kind of input given. Students are expected to know this or pick it up from socialization. That is awful. And I am sure – still this is the case!