Elsevier is investigating a case report of a person with aggressive cancer, written by three plant researchers working far afield of their specialty.
The three authors of the study, published June 2024 in Oral Oncology Reports, purport to diagnose a 63-year-old man with a rare, aggressive form of oral cancer. The journal is a companion title to Elsevier’s Oral Oncology according to the homepage, but is not indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Corresponding author Velmani Sankaravel told Retraction Watch he and his colleagues found the case report from an “online open-access source” and then used it “to support our research on plant-based diagnostics for oral cancer.” However, the paper lists CT scans, biopsies, and other routine diagnostic tests and makes no mention of plant-based diagnostic tools.
Sankaravel also told us the article was originally conceived as a “comprehensive review article,” but the authors “later adapted it into a short communication due to our limited research experience.” Sankaravel and coauthor Arumugam Arunprasath are assistant professors in the botany department at PSG College of Arts and Science in Tamil Nadu, India. The third author, Sudhir Sreeram, was a postdoctoral researcher at PSG at the time the article was published, according to his ORCID profile.
Rebecca Clear, a communications director at Elsevier, told us the journal has “received reports from readers” and is actively investigating the paper.
Clear also said Elsevier is looking into a discrepancy between the “Highlights” section of the paper, which lists the subject as a 60-year-old female, and the paper, which describes a 63-year-old male.
That discrepancy, Sankaravel told us, was due to a “typographical error.” He says the authors have reached out to the journal to correct the Highlights section.
Sankaravel is also an author on another article on oral cancer, published earlier this year in the Oriental Journal of Chemistry, whose coauthors include biotechnologists and biochemists.
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].
I believe the authors committed two instances of research misconduct: (1) publishing a fabricated case report (pre-publication misconduct) and (2) defending that report after publication (post-publication misconduct).
A few specific and troubling issues demand clarification.
1. The authors told Retraction Watch they used a case report “found in an online open-access source.” Please provide the URL and full citation of that source. If material from another author was used, why was it not cited or attributed?
2. Explain how that case report “supported” the authors’ stated research on plant-based diagnostics for oral cancer, and why any plant-based diagnostic methods were not described in the published paper?
3. Is it plausible that a “63-year-old male” became a “60-year-old female” merely because of a typographical error?
If the authors do not answer these 3 questions within a week, Retraction Watch may contact the authors’ institution for an explanation and update the article.
If misconduct is confirmed, disciplinary action should be taken in accordance with applicable government rules. These offenses, if proven, damage the reputation of the authors’ institution.
Well, the “online open-access source” is
https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR2305F20.pdf which actually described a case of a 60-year-old female.
The entire Elsevier paper is well… rephrased somewhat but identical to the original JETIR paper (without the photo’s and descriptions of the figures). Take for example the JETIR introduction:
“… epithelia is their protective role that inevitably exposes them to environmental substances, including carcinogens that can create a vast area of genetically altered cancer fields and can undergo abnormal proliferation.1 Several carcinogens such as tobacco, alcohol, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) have been associated with an increased risk of oral cavity cancer. According to International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in 2020 worldwide burden of oral cancer is 377713 new cases and 177757 deaths with an average 5-yearsurvival rate is 40% 2”
And the Elsevier paper introduction:
“Epithelia serve a vital protective function but are inevitably exposed to environmental carcinogens, leading to extensive fields of genetically altered cells prone to abnormal proliferation [1]. Oral cavity cancer risk is notably increased by carcinogens such as tobacco, alcohol, and Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reported 377,713 new oral cancer cases and 177,757 deaths globally in 2020, with an average 5-year survival rate of 40 % [2].”
Or the first lines in the case report, JETIR:
“A 60‑year‑old female patient reported to our Institute with a chief complaint of swelling on right side of face since 1 month…Swelling was stony hard & tender on palpation. Right submandibular lymphadenopathy was present. Intraoral examination revealed multifocal large irregular, non-scrapable lesions with clear borders located on right buccal mucosa, mandibular alveolar ridge, floor of the mouth, lateral border and ventral surface of the tongue, palate, lip (Fig 1 to 5).”
And the Case report in the Elsevier paper:
“A 63-year-old male presented with a month’s history of left-sided facial swelling and recent mild pain. The swelling, initially small, was stony hard and tender upon palpation. Left submandibular lymphadenopathy was observed. Intraoral examination revealed multifocal, irregular, non-scrapable lesions with distinct borders across the left buccal mucosa, mandibular alveolar ridge, floor of the mouth, tongue, palate, and lip.”
Another example, JETIR:
“Most of the lesions were plaque type whitish in colour with verrucous surface. Some lesions were greyish white in colour… There was reddish white lesion on alveolar ridge of 45,46 region (Fig 6). Mandibular arch was edentulous… Teeth were present in the maxillary arch (11-18, 21-23, 27) with generalized Grade 1 mobility, generalized gingival recession, generalized attrition… a provisional clinical diagnosis of oral proliferative verrucous leukoplakia was made.”
And Elsevier paper:
“Most lesions were whitish and verrucous, some greyish-white, leathery, and rough but non-tender. A reddish-white lesion was noted on the alveolar ridge of teeth 45 and 46. The mandibular arch was edentulous, while the maxillary arch had teeth with generalized Grade 1 mobility, gingival recession, and attrition. A provisional diagnosis of
oral proliferative verrucous leukoplakia was made.”
The case report descriptions end with (JETIR):
“The overall picture is suggestive of Oral Field Cancerization with Well Differentiated Squamous Cell Carcinoma in the alveolar region of 45,46 region.”
And Elsevier with:
“These findings were consistent with oral field cancerization and well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma in the alveolar region of teeth 45 and 46.”
Reference list is in both cases exactly the same…etc. etc.
Thank you, Mr. Rob Keller, for your input. I now understand how a 60‑year‑old female ended up as a 63-year-old male. This was not a typographical error, as the authors claimed, but the result of paraphrasing the JETIR paper. Their intention is now clear.
This is a blatant case of plagiarism. The intentional alterations, such as changing the subject’s age and gender, demonstrate a clear attempt to cheat, suggesting the authors assumed their misconduct would go unnoticed.
Another serious issue is the authors’ claim in their Elsevier paper that they diagnosed a cancer patient. Such a claim falls far outside the professional scope of Botanists and raises significant ethical and academic integrity concerns.
The author’s institution (PSG College of Arts and Science) should promptly initiate action in line with the relevant guidelines in India. (https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/7771545_academic-integrity-Regulation2018.pdf). The journal (Oral Oncology Reports) should retract the paper, clearly mentioning the reason.
Dear James Peterson
The following post in PubPeer dedicated to this Elsevier ‘paper’ https://pubpeer.com/publications/D2B889770126F2615135183C95C6A6#0
gives somewhat more details.
Personally I think that this is a ‘paper’ produced by a paper mill ‘company’. This might explain why this paper is so much out of scope of these author’s field of expertise…
RW will take appropriate actions I presume.
Straight-up shameless misconduct. I’ve never seen cheating like this anywhere. RW should hand these authors the sarcastic “Misconduct of the Year 2025” award. Elsevier ought to ban them from publishing for a period it sees fit. This case should be taught to students as a prime example of research fraud. It’s a total breakdown of research ethics. I hope the relevant authorities in India investigate so this doesn’t happen again. It tarnishes both the authors’ institution and the country.