A researcher who used similar, related, or identical research to publish over 30 studies in various academic journals will have four more of those papers retracted, bringing his total to ten retractions, Retraction Watch has learned.
Hossein Mohammadhosseini was formerly listed as a researcher at the School of Civil Engineering at the University of Technology, Malaysia. His retracted papers all relate to a method to make more sustainable concrete by adding metalized plastic fibers, polypropylene fibers, and/or palm oil fuel ash.
Four of Mohammadhosseini’s studies are being retracted from the Journal of Cleaner Production. They are:
- Waste metalized film food packaging as low cost and ecofriendly fibrous materials in the production of sustainable and green concrete composites (published in 2020 and cited 44 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science)
- Durability performance of green concrete composites containing waste carpet fibers and palm oil fuel ash (2017, cited 106 times)
- Enhanced performance for aggressive environments of green concrete composites reinforced with waste carpet fibers and palm oil fuel ash (2018, cited 69 times)
- Microstructure and residual properties of green concrete composites incorporating waste carpet fibers and palm oil fuel ash at elevated temperatures (2017, cited 80 times)
Though the studies have not yet been retracted, Retraction Watch learned of the upcoming retractions from an anonymous whistleblower who goes by the name Artemisia Stricta. Artemisia, who originally raised the concerns about Mohammadhosseini’s research in October 2022, was informed of the upcoming retractions on May 8 by Chunyan Wang, assistant editor of the journal, and alerted Retraction Watch.
A spokesperson for Elsevier, the journal’s publisher, told Retraction Watch that “the investigations of the five papers have concluded, and the retraction notices for the four papers will be published in the coming weeks.”
In October 2022, Artemisia emailed editors of each of the 11 journals that had published these studies. Between 2015 and 2022, Artemisia noted that Mohammadhosseini published 33 papers using the same research on this formulation of concrete. Artemisia wrote, in part:
Notably, even when different materials or conditions were reported (e.g., prepacked vs. mixed-in aggregate, unexposed vs. sulfate-exposed concrete), identical results were sometimes shown. This indicates potential falsification. It is also notable that identical (or nearly-identical) work was often published with varying authorship lists, indicating either ghost or gift authorship.
Generally, it appears that the authors submitted similar publications in parallel, which would have allowed them to avoid detection for duplicate submission. Of course, as part of the submission process, authors are generally required to attest that they will not do so, as such duplicate publication wastes the resources of journals/publishers and skews the scientific literature.
As I am sure you will agree, such conduct, if confirmed, would violate publication ethics and may constitute grounds for retraction of the papers.
One of these 33 papers had already been retracted when Artemisia wrote this message, and since then, five others have been retracted, according to the Retraction Watch Database.
Though Artemisia originally raised concerns about five papers published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, the journal ultimately decided to retract only four of them. In response to questions from Retraction Watch,an Elsevier spokesperson said:
Artemisia Stricta contacted the Editor of JCLP with concerns about five papers. We investigated all five papers and found that – in four of them – images and data had been re-used from already published papers. The author was asked to provide explanations, denied duplication but ultimately upon further review the decision was made to retract 4 of the 5 papers.
In response to an email from Retraction Watch, Artemisia reiterated that they believe all five papers contain duplicated material and should have been retracted. Artemisia also said they believed that in all, there were about 40 papers published by this researcher and their coauthors that should be retracted.
Though Mohammadhosseini did not respond to an email from Retraction Watch, Artemisia forwarded us an email that Mohammadhosseini had sent them in October 2022, which Artemisia said is the first such email they have received directly from a researcher asking them to stop raising concerns about the researcher’s work. In the message, Mohammadhosseini wrote, in part:
We expected if there were a mistakes in our papers, you would contact us directly and help us to resolve it, but unfortunately, you did this in a way that the journal’s editor, my colleagues, and friends thought wrong about me, and it embarrassed me.
I don’t understand the reason behind this action. You have emailed all journals and mentioned duplication, which is not correct, as I reuse some of the common pictures in relevant papers.
You have done what you want to destroy my life and career, which is not fair, but I confirm and guarantee that there is no wanted duplication to ignore the journal’s ethics.
I hope you are satisfied with what you did, and I request you stop playing with my life.
Artemisia wrote that while they “feel a lot of compassion” for Mohammadhosseini, he does not seem to understand how his misconduct has damaged this field of study. For instance, Artemisia noted that because research like this is used in building codes, falsified data can claim lives.
Along with his message, Mohammadhosseini forwarded Artemisia an email he had received claiming to know Artemisia’s identity. Artemisia said the claims in the message were not only false but dangerous, and that at least one researcher, who might be the one identified in the email, has had death threats made against them and their family based on the false notion that this person was Artemisia. Artemisia wrote, in part:
By and large, the scientific community (to include editors at prominent journals and publishers) has received my allegations with hostility. Revenge, retaliation, and bluster seem to be kneejerk reactions, and their deterrent effect cannot be overlooked. Prominent researchers, when not actively complicit, often allow this atmosphere to fester by inaction.
Update, 6/8/23, 1400 UTC: In a reply to an email from Retraction Watch, Chunyan Wang, the assistant editor for the Journal of Cleaner Production, said, in part:
Since receiving your communication, I have been working with colleagues at Elsevier related to this case, but have nothing more to add at this stage. We recognize the importance of addressing this issue.
We genuinely appreciate your attention and unwavering support for the Journal of Cleaner Production. Your commitment to the journal’s mission is invaluable to us, and we are dedicated to addressing any concerns that may arise to maintain the high standards and integrity of our publication.
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].
Going after researchers in less well to do Asian countries has become a sport. How much of the research in Europe and US were retractable back in the day when they did not have abundant money from exploiting colonization?
Why’s the salty complain? If it’s a misconduct, it should be exposed, doesn’t matter who exposes it. This will actually help putting Asian academic to the right track.
You’re right, we should certainly just let the .research record be crowded with falsified data and ghost authored publications to bolster the careers of disadvantaged frauds.
No – in reality I imagine the efforts of people like Mr. Mohammadhosseini are only stifling progress of other Asian researchers, by faking their way through academia and taking the jobs of real hardworking individuals in their country, preventing them from gaining success.
Not to mention that such data fabricators spread erroneous information into science, which directly or indirectly harms everything from people to animals to the planet to the economy. Falsified research can even KILL humans by helping dangerously incorrect diagnostic or therapeutic guidelines form.
This misconduct also includes many falsified studies on pseudoscientific so-called “therapies” like acupuncture or homeopathy. Promoting such irrelevant nonsense (especially using fake data or at best, using uncontrolled and very dubious methods) will ultimately cloud the judgment of people (and even doctors) and deviate people from seeking real treatments. In the long run, such falsified results severely harm humans.
Mr. Mohammadhosseini should have thought of that before playing with others’ life by his data fabrications.
The irony lies in retractions at JCP. Look up earlier reports on ethical problems by the editorial team at JCP on RW. Those familiar with the field can easily observe the excessive number of papers published by JCP, inflating its impact factor without a corresponding increase in the quality of papers deserving publication. It appears that unethical individuals have taken control of the journal, and Elsevier, the publisher, seems to turn a blind eye to the situation. Despite receiving a minor punishment for self-citation issues a couple of years ago, the journal’s moral foundation appears to be fundamentally compromised with editor’s with less than strong records and a litany of special issues on nonsensical topics. JCP is a legitimized predatory journal.