A journal editor who disdains anonymous concerns about research integrity has just seen an article in his journal retracted, thanks to the work of a pseudonymous sleuth.
The paper at issue, “An experimental investigation into the effects of Cr2O3 and ZnO2 nanoparticles on the mechanical properties and durability of self-compacting mortar,” was published in 2015 in International Journal of Materials Research (IJMR). It has been cited 23 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
In 2020, the pseudonymous sleuth Artemisia Stricta first alerted IJMR leadership to possible image manipulation in the article as part of an extensive report on hundreds of compromised papers. Editors and the journal’s publisher De Gruyter did not investigate the case for two years.
During that time, Guido Schmitz of the University of Stuttgart became the journal’s editor in chief. When Artemisia followed up on their report, Schmitz said that he would not investigate the potential misconduct until Artemisia revealed their identity:
I can assure that I do not like fraud in scientific results and I will do my best to prevent them. But on the other hand, I hate anonymous accusations. So it would be my pleasure to follow up this matter after you have discovered your personality to me and send contact data under which I can reach you.
Schmitz also told us that authors were free to try to publish “bullshit and fiction,” and that “acting as policemen watching whether other people behave ethically” was not his top priority.
De Gruyter opened an investigation into the article following our coverage — and this investigation has now vindicated Artemisia by leading to the article’s retraction.
“Though the misconduct in this case was clearcut, this has been one of the hardest retractions I have ever worked,” Artemisia told us.
The full retraction notice, dated March 7, 2023, stated:
Following concerns raised by a third-party, this article has been retracted on the grounds of image duplication across a number of journal articles. As a result, the journal no longer has confidence in the images or the data presented.
Schmitz did not reply to our requests for comment. Neither did the paper’s corresponding author, Ehsan Mohseni of the University of Guilan in Iran. Mohseni has seven other retractions.
When asked about the investigation that led to the retraction, a De Gruyter spokesperson told us:
De Gruyter adheres to the guidelines of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Following the recommended workflows of COPE, De Gruyter investigated this case in consultation with the journal editors and the authors of the article, and with the support of De Gruyter’s internal ethics committee.
Per Artemisia:
Only following the involvement of Retraction Watch and a letter to the entire editorial board did the journal finally agree to investigate (and later retract) the paper. In a prior report to IJMR (under a previous editor-in-chief), three retractions were effected within two weeks of a report, which shows that the three year timeline was patently unnecessary. Cases like this are disappointing and discouraging. Editors should be motivated to vouchsafe [sic] the integrity of their own publications without the need for pressure or bad publicity.
We have long maintained that editors should take the claims of anonymous sources seriously.
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].
That Guido Schmitz believes scientists and scientific journals should be free to publish “bullshit and fiction,” I must assume his own published work sinks to that execrable standard. Perhaps it is time to review his published works…
The title of this article is deliberately misleading to demean the Editor in Chief.
Quoted “authors were free to try to publish “bullshit and fiction,”; the keyword here is “try”.
Very likely this is taken out of context of what the EiC Guido Schmitz said. Possibly something like “authors were free to try to publish bullshit and fiction” but it won’t get past me”
Incorrect. We published Schmitz’s entire email in our last post to prevent the sort of spin demonstrated by this comment.
The exact quote: “freedom to also present bullshit and fiction (which I hope to filter out by our editorial process, but nothing without failure)”
Sounds a lot closer in meaning to the “spin” of the comment above…
The de Gruyter statement is disingenuous. How did any of what apparently transpired fit within the COPE guidance, ambiguous though it is? If COPE guidance was truly followed, the guidance needs rewriting.
Mainly, I have to wonder how he is still EiC. Given his handling of the whistleblower and the statements about “bullshit” science, how can he still have his position?