Scientist sues publisher to block expression of concern

A gastroenterology researcher has sued a scientific journal to stop it from publishing an expression of concern for one of her papers. 

Soudamani Singh, an assistant professor in the Department of Clinical and Translational Sciences at Marshall University’s Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine in Huntington, W. Va., is the middle author of “Cyclooxygenase pathway mediates the inhibition of Na-glutamine co-transporter B0AT1 in rabbit villus cells during chronic intestinal inflammation,” published in PLOS ONE in September 2018. The article has been cited nine times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

We previously reported that the corresponding author of the paper, Uma Sundaram, vice dean of research and graduate education at the Edwards School and chair of its department of clinical and translational science, told us he had contacted PLOS to request a correction to the article. 

A comment on another of our posts had identified a duplicated image in the paper, but Sundaram said he and his coauthors had noticed the “accidental error” independently and notified the journal. The committee that conducted a subsequent research misconduct inquiry into the matter decided not to pursue an investigation because Sundaram had already contacted the journal to make the correction. 

PLOS spokesperson David Knutson told us at the time that the journal had not decided what type of notice to issue. 

According to Singh’s lawsuit against PLOS, filed in federal court in April and first reported by the West Virginia Record, the journal had decided to publish an expression of concern instead of a correction. 

Singh is seeking a temporary restraining order and eventually a permanent injunction preventing PLOS from publishing the expression of concern, “compensation for damages incurred as a result of the unlawful and harmful conduct carried out by Defendant,” and recovery of her legal fees. Neither her lawyer nor the local counsel for PLOS has responded to our request for comment.  

In a previous case in which a researcher sued to block publication of expressions of concern on his work, a judge denied the request for a restraining order and injunction because, as one legal commentator explained, the law does not allow courts to censor speech ahead of time.  

As the lawsuit tells it, the duplicated image was “simply a scrivener’s error” in compiling the manuscript, which the researchers discovered “in or around June 2022,” the month the comment pointing out the duplication appeared on Retraction Watch. 

After the authors notified the publisher of the duplication (which Knutson previously told us happened on June 17), the suit alleges PLOS: 

made numerous inquiries about the Article which were duplicative of the vetting process that Plaintiff had already reviewed with Defendant nearly four (4) years prior – when Defendant’s research editors had accepted the research, data, scientific processes and conclusions related to the Article.

Nine months later, PLOS notified the scientists of the decision to publish an expression of concern. 

Publishing such a notice instead of a correction is inappropriate, the lawsuit argues, because: 

In the research publication world, a Notice of Concern has quite the negative connotation and implies a certain level of intentional misconduct (i.e. plagiarism, falsifying data, etc.) or that something otherwise nefarious has occurred with an article.

Yet, “there have been zero allegations lodged by Defendants regarding research or publication misconduct,” the suit states. It also cites the findings of the research misconduct inquiry, and quotes a memo from Marshall University’s vice president for research John M. Maher, in which he wrote: 

Dr. Sundaram and his colleagues did not commit research misconduct, but instead offered exemplary vigilance and diligence in detecting and correcting a mistake in published work.

PLOS’s guidelines for publishing expressions of concern do not mention misconduct, but state they are “notices published at editors’ discretion to alert readers of serious concerns about published work or an article’s compliance with PLOS policies (e.g. Data Availability).”

Singh’s suit claims that if PLOS publishes the expression of concern, it will damage her reputation and she will lose career opportunities and wages, and it could also “jeopardize a current federal research grant that Plaintiff and her team are applying to renew.”

Besides seeking the temporary restraining order, Singh’s suit alleges breach of contract, negligence, defamation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices, namely that PLOS

has engaged in an unlawful and deceptive practice of soliciting articles from authors for publication in furtherance of their own economic benefit, accepting money and later rejecting said articles or, alternatively, engaging in a pattern of falsely publishing unlawful “Notices of Concern.”

The lawsuit requests a trial by jury.

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].