A professor of pharmaceutical chemistry in Iraq has been steadily racking up retractions since 2022, with reasons ranging from authorship manipulation to irrelevant citations, peer review-by-author and not providing study data upon request.
Yasser Fakri Mustafa, who is also dean of the College of Pharmacy at the University of Mosul and editor-in-chief of the Iraqi Journal of Pharmacy, now has at least 16 retractions to his name, and more are likely to follow. One publisher told us it is actively investigating Mustafa’s work, and 81 of his more than 500 papers have been flagged on PubPeer.
From 2008 to 2019, Mustafa published no more than one or two articles a year, and often he had no output at all, according to the research database Dimensions. Then his output rose sharply, peaking at 120 in 2022, according to Dimensions. That same year, however, the researcher’s name appeared in a blog post by Nick Wise and Alexander Magazinov about authorship-for-sale networks. The two sleuths had found several papers by Mustafa and a slew of international coauthors that matched authorship ads on various websites, including that of a Russia-linked paper mill in Latvia, as they documented on PubPeer.
An online list of other works that match ads found on the Latvian paper mill’s website includes several articles by Mustafa that have not been retracted.
At least one of the dean’s retractions is explicitly linked to a PubPeer post that shows a Facebook ad selling authorship of the paper. The retraction notice states the study was submitted by a single author in Iran and that the other authors, including Mustafa, were added during a revision of the manuscript.
Mustafa’s coauthors on the retracted papers include at least two former Iraqi university presidents. One of them, Shafik Shaker Shafik, whose article was pulled in 2023 for authorship and peer-review manipulation, now heads the country’s Scientific Research Commission, an organ under the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.
In response to our questions, Mustafa focused on three retractions in Frontiers journals that provided little detail beyond stating that an investigation had found a “serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics.”
“In all three cases, the retractions were due to administrative and procedural concerns related to author order and not due to any academic misconduct, data falsification, plagiarism, or ethical violations,” Mustafa told us. “The research methodologies, results, and conclusions remain valid and scientifically sound.”
Mustafa’s statements echoed assertions by Haider Al-Aboudi, spokesperson for Iraq’s Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, who said on a recent news program (in Arabic) the University of Mosul’s retractions were for “procedural reasons” rather than “issues of research integrity or ethics.” Of the 19 retractions the institution has earned since 2022, all but three are Mustafa’s, according to the Retraction Watch Database.
Citing confidentiality, Frontiers would not share information about the nature of the ethics and authorship violations it had found. But a spokesperson told us, “When investigations raise concerns, we engage with authors as well as their institutions and share relevant findings to support further review or action.”
Mustafa’s other retractions – in journals from publishers such as Elsevier, MDPI, Wiley, Springer Nature and Taylor & Francis – offer much more detail.
An Elsevier journal, for instance, described how, “In addition to manipulation of the list of authors, acceptance of this article was partly based upon the positive advice made by a reviewer that had conflict of interest. That reviewer contributed substantively to the preparation of both the original and revised manuscripts without disclosing their involvement to the editor.”
And a Springer Nature journal noted “the authors have not provided the underlying data on the editor’s request. Additionally, the authors have not been able to provide documentation that ethical approval was obtained prior to commencing this study. The ethics approval number as stated in this article appears to be identical to an ethics approval number in a previously published article by some of the same authors.”
Mustafa declined to comment on these retractions, and his institution did not reply to repeated requests for comment.
But an academic at the institution told us the problems with Mustafa’s work had caused concern among several of his colleagues. “The damage to the university of Mosul is evident,” said the academic, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.
Frontiers told us it had concluded its investigation into Mustafa’s papers, but Taylor & Francis said it was “independently investigating concerns raised about a number of articles” by the dean.
Despite his growing number of retractions, journals continue to publish Mustafa’s papers at a brisk clip. More than 20 of his articles have appeared in Springer Nature journals since the company’s latest retraction of one of his works on March 6, for example.
We asked Springer Nature whether it was currently investigating Mustafa’s work and how it deals with authors who have had several articles retracted for serious ethics breaches. The publisher said it would get back to us, but after two weeks still has not provided comments.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].
Can you retract other researchers?
In Defense of Academic Integrity: Dissecting the Retraction Allegations Against a Distinguished Scientist
In the often-turbulent waters of academic publishing, retractions serve as a critical mechanism for maintaining the integrity of scientific literature. However, recent allegations leveled against a prominent dean at the University of Mosul, Yasser Fakri Mustafa, concerning a significant number of retracted publications, warrant a closer, more nuanced examination. While the sheer volume of retractions might initially raise eyebrows, a deeper dive into the context, the nature of these retractions, and the dean’s overall academic contributions reveals a narrative far more complex than a simple tally suggests.
The Unofficial ‘Retraction Index’ and its Misleading Implications
At the heart of the current discourse is the concept of a ‘retraction index’ – a metric that purports to measure the likelihood of an article being retracted. However, it is crucial to underscore that this ‘retraction index’ is not a formally recognized or endorsed metric by leading academic bodies or organizations dedicated to publication ethics, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE, a globally respected authority on best practices in scholarly publishing, provides comprehensive guidelines for retractions, emphasizing their purpose as a means to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, rather than solely to punish authors. Their guidelines focus on serious flaws, misconduct, or misrepresentation, but also acknowledge that retractions can stem from major errors or irregularities that may not necessarily imply severe author misconduct. The absence of official recognition for a ‘retraction index’ suggests that relying solely on such a metric can be misleading and fail to capture the complexities of academic publishing and the various reasons behind retractions. Relying solely on such an unofficial index to impugn a researcher’s career is akin to judging a book by its cover, ignoring the rich content within.
A Distinguished Career: A Legacy of Q1 Publications and Prolific Research
Before delving into the specifics of the retractions, it is imperative to acknowledge professor Mustafa’s substantial and verifiable contributions to the scientific community. With over 440 publications indexed in Scopus and 343 in Clarivate Web of Science, his research output is undeniably prolific. More significantly, almost all of his publications have appeared in Q1 classified scientific journals. For those unfamiliar with academic ranking, Q1 journals represent the top 25% of publications within a specific field, based on rigorous metrics such as Impact Factor and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). Publishing in such esteemed venues is a hallmark of high-quality research, rigorous peer review, and significant academic impact. It indicates a researcher’s ability to produce work that meets the highest standards of their discipline, garners wide readership, and contributes meaningfully to scholarly discourse. This extensive record in top-tier journals stands as a testament to professor Mustafa’s dedication to scientific inquiry and his consistent ability to produce impactful research.
Unpacking the Retractions: Procedural Lapses vs. Scientific Misconduct
The narrative surrounding professor Mustafa’s retractions often overlooks the critical distinction between genuine scientific misconduct and procedural or administrative errors. While the initial context provided by the user highlights reasons such as “authorship manipulation,” “irrelevant citations,” and “peer review-by-author,” professor Mustafa himself offers a crucial counter-narrative. He asserts that the retractions, particularly those in Frontiers journals, were primarily due to “administrative and procedural concerns related to author order and not due to any academic misconduct, data falsification, plagiarism, or ethical violations.” This assertion is corroborated by a spokesperson for Iraq’s Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, who also characterized the retractions as being for “procedural reasons” rather than “issues of research integrity or ethics.”
Indeed, some of the reasons cited for retractions, even those presented as problematic, can often fall into a grey area of procedural misunderstanding rather than deliberate fraud. For instance, a change in author order, while requiring careful adherence to journal policies, does not inherently equate to scientific fraud. Similarly, a “misunderstanding in ethical approval No.” could be an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to bypass ethical review.
In the international research groups, the role of Dr Mustafa in many of these retracted researches was described as “revising and organizing the manuscript to meet the journal publication requirements.” This suggests a focus on editorial compliance, where minor deviations from strict journal protocols, rather than fundamental scientific flaws, might have led to retractions. This seems very plausible when we know that the vast majority of the retracted researches were review articles.
Furthermore, one of the more perplexing aspects of the allegations against Dr. Mustafa concerns the timing and stated reasons for some of the retractions. It is noted that some retractions occurred as long as two years after the initial publication of the manuscript. This delay raises pertinent questions: if the issues leading to retraction were genuinely severe, why did they not surface during the initial rigorous peer-review process that Q1 journals are known for? This extended timeline could suggest a variety of factors, including evolving editorial policies, new interpretations of data, or even external pressures unrelated to the original scientific merit of the work. It also highlights the inherent challenges in maintaining a perfect record in the dynamic and ever-evolving landscape of scientific publishing. This delay, coupled with the Dr Mustafa’s explanation, lends credence to the argument that many of these retractions might stem from procedural discrepancies rather than egregious scientific misconduct.
The Mosul Context: A Surge Born of Resilience, Not Deception
Perhaps the most egregious misrepresentation in the narrative against Dr. Mustafa is the failure to contextualize the sharp increase in his publication output, which peaked at an impressive 120 publications in 2022. Critics have pointed to this surge as suspicious, implying a sudden, inexplicable burst of productivity that might hint at impropriety. However, such a claim conveniently ignores the profound and devastating realities faced by the city of Mosul, Dr. Mustafa’s home, during the period leading up to this increase.
From 2008 to 2019, Mosul endured unimaginable hardship under war conditions and the brutal occupation by terrorist groups. This was a period of immense instability, destruction, and displacement, where basic infrastructure, including academic institutions and research facilities, was severely compromised or entirely destroyed. The very act of conducting research, accessing resources, or even maintaining a semblance of normal academic life was an extraordinary challenge, if not an impossibility. Researchers, like all citizens, were focused on survival, safety, and the rebuilding of their lives and communities. It is entirely logical, and indeed commendable, that research output would be significantly curtailed during such a protracted crisis.
The subsequent surge in Dr. Mustafa’s publications in 2022 is not a sign of falsified allegations but rather a testament to resilience and the re-establishment of academic normalcy. As Mosul began its arduous recovery, and as stability gradually returned, so too did the opportunities for dedicated scholars like Dr. Mustafa to resume their work with renewed vigor. The ability to access libraries, laboratories, and collaborate with colleagues, previously impossible, would naturally lead to a rapid acceleration in research and publication. To divorce this increase from the socio-political realities of Mosul is not only intellectually dishonest but also deeply disrespectful to the struggles and triumphs of a community emerging from conflict.
The Broader Context: A Call for Nuance in Academic Accountability
The case of Professor Mustafa, dean of the College of Pharmacy / University of Mosul underscores the need for a nuanced approach to academic accountability. While vigilance against research misconduct is paramount, it is equally important to avoid a blanket condemnation based solely on the number of retractions. The academic community must differentiate between genuine threats to scientific integrity—such as data fabrication or plagiarism—and administrative or procedural missteps that, while serious, do not invalidate the scientific merit of the work. The dean’s extensive publication record in Q1 journals, coupled with his explanation of the retractions, suggests that his contributions to science are substantial and should not be overshadowed by a focus on procedural issues. As the academic landscape continues to evolve, so too must our understanding and application of retraction policies, ensuring they serve to uphold scientific truth without unduly penalizing researchers for administrative complexities or minor procedural deviations.
The Question of Bias: Why Dr. Mustafa?
A critical question that remains largely unaddressed by those leveling accusations is: why Dr. Mustafa? In a vast academic landscape populated by countless researchers, what justified the singular and intense focus on this particular dean? The journalist’s decision to track and investigate Dr. Mustafa, seemingly to the exclusion of others, raises serious concerns about potential bias, personal vendettas, or an agenda-driven narrative. Who granted this journalist the authority to conduct such a targeted investigation, and what were the criteria for selecting Dr. Mustafa as the subject of such scrutiny?
Academic research is a collaborative endeavor, and it is rare for a single individual to be solely responsible for every aspect of a publication. In many of the retracted researches, Dr. Mustafa’s role was specifically defined as revising and organizing the manuscript to meet journal publication requirements. This is a crucial distinction. Such a role is typically editorial and administrative, focusing on ensuring the manuscript adheres to stylistic guidelines, structural coherence, and submission protocols. It does not inherently involve the generation of raw data, the execution of experiments, or the primary analysis of results. To attribute issues arising from these core research activities solely to an individual whose role was primarily one of refinement and organization is a misattribution of responsibility and a fundamental misunderstanding of collaborative academic processes.
Finally, it is imperative to state unequivocally that Dr. Mustafa reserves his rights to pursue legal action against any journalist who has disseminated falsified allegations. The damage inflicted by baseless accusations on a scholar’s reputation, built over a lifetime of dedication and hard work, is immense and far-reaching. This firm stance underscores the seriousness with which Dr. Mustafa views these claims and his commitment to defending his integrity and legacy against unwarranted attacks. In an era where misinformation can spread rapidly, it is more crucial than ever to demand journalistic responsibility and accountability, especially when dealing with the careers and reputations of esteemed individuals.
I’m not reading all that.
Word count is not a defense.
Funny that your LLM somehow doesn’t include the fact that coauthorship that is only “revising and organizing the manuscript to meet journal publication requirements” rather than “generation of raw data, the execution of experiments, or the primary analysis of results” is literally a defining feature of paper mill activity.
What a blunt example of someone who cheat and simply deny it after being caught.
I got a “It wasn’t me” vibe (like in the famous song by Shaggy):
-Countless papers are linked to Paper Mill advertisements…it wasn’t me
-Unexplanable variety of topics …it wasn’t me
-At least one example of plagiarism (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/E5DDAD68F3038D97F6EDA320B6383F ) …it wasn’t me
-Linked to notorious imposters like Abdelbasset, Bokov, Turki Jalil etc. (see https://forbetterscience.com/2022/10/19/the-incredible-collaborations-of-renaissance-men-and-women/ ) …it wasn’t me
Does not surprise me. Most if not all are like that. Sometimes I do wonder if they believe their own narrative.