An Elsevier journal has retracted seven articles by a prolific data fabricator – three and a half years after the publisher said it would retract 10 of his papers, and five months after the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) threatened the journal with sanctions for the delay.
As we previously reported, the Journal of the Neurological Sciences had decided by June 2020 to retract 10 articles by Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto, who are currently in positions four and six on our leaderboard of retractions. But the papers remained intact until December 2023, when seven were retracted. The remaining three are still unmarked.
“We have no idea why it took so long,” said Andrew Grey, of the University of Auckland, in New Zealand, who with colleagues Alison Avenell and Mark Bolland has scrutinized the work of Sato and Iwamoto. The group’s efforts have led to more than 100 retractions, but publishers have yet to assess a significant number of papers about which they have raised concerns.
“We very much doubt that any action at all would have been forthcoming if we had not raised concerns, then followed up on multiple occasions, despite Elsevier having considerable knowledge of the Sato/Iwamoto integrity concerns,” Grey told Retraction Watch. “The involvement of COPE was probably pivotal in pushing the publisher to act, but, again, had we not repeatedly enquired of COPE as to what was happening, it is likely that nothing would have transpired.”
Grey and his colleagues first contacted the Journal of Neurological Sciences about concerns with two of Sato’s papers in 2017. They flagged eight others in the next two years.
“The journal editor didn’t engage with the issue, the Elsevier journal manager responded occasionally but unhelpfully, the Elsevier integrity staff ignored requests for updates,” Grey said.
In 2020, after years of inaction, Grey requested help from COPE. Soon after COPE got involved, the Elsevier director of publishing services said the journal editor and society affiliated with the journal had decided to retract the problematic articles.
“Given that we have made extensive efforts to find and contact all authors, we plan to now proceed with these retractions, unless COPE has serious concerns about this approach,” the Elsevier representative wrote in June 2020.
When nothing had happened after two years, Grey and his colleagues followed up with COPE. The organization conducted another review, and in July 2023 sent a letter to Elsevier research integrity staff noting the publisher had not responded to “repeated communications” or retracted the articles.
The letter, signed by Iratxe Puebla, Facilitation and Integrity Officer, stated COPE was considering sanctions for the journal for “refus[ing] or fail[ing] to engage with COPE to remediate ethical issues.” It continued:
A group of three Trustees has reviewed the case and concluded that there is a clear breakdown in process speed and transparency at the journal level and/or publisher to journal communication. This is of particular concern in this case given that the articles report research involving humans and thus have implications for human health, in such situations the relevant COPE flowcharts would typically suggest an interim Expression of Concern to alert readers to the concerns about the publications. Consequently, the Trustee Board considers that the journal’s initial response, and the lack of follow-up response or steps to correct the record, are inconsistent with the standards that we expect from COPE members.
Puebla asked the journal to improve its processes, including those for investigating concerns about articles, communicating with the readers who raised the concerns, responding to COPE’s requests for information, and issuing retractions. Regarding the Sato papers the journal still hadn’t retracted, she wrote:
We understand that the follow up on matters related to the accuracy or integrity of published work can take time, however, the journal indicated that a decision had been reached to retract the articles three years ago. We view the time elapsed as protracted and in breach of expectations per the Retraction guidelines. We request that you proceed with the publication of the retractions – or an appropriate public notification on the articles – without further delay.
COPE gave the journal six months to make changes and report back on its progress, with a deadline of Jan. 31, 2024.
At that point, the organization would “evaluate whether you have taken adequate steps to address our concerns about compliance with expectations of COPE members or, on the other hand, whether any further follow-up or further sanctions are required,” the letter stated.
Based on COPE’s process for sanctions, the letter to Elsevier seems to fall under the first category of actions: “Private, written notification to both journal and publisher that the member has failed to comply with COPE principles,” with opportunity to improve. Subsequently, members could be placed on probation, then have their membership revoked.
Puebla has not responded to our request for comment on the letter and whether COPE was still considering sanctions for the journal.
John D. England, the editor in chief of the Journal of Neurological Sciences, has not responded to our request for comment. An Elsevier spokesperson sent us the following comment:
We are continuing to investigate the papers published in the Journal of Neurological Sciences and have reached out to the institutions where the research took place for additional information. We will continue to publish corrections to the record where appropriate and according to COPE guidelines and our own policies.
Grey told Retraction Watch that one of the Elsevier staffers to whom the letter was addressed, Mihail Grecea, a senior expert in publishing ethics, contacted him in November with the news that seven of the papers would be retracted.
The following articles were retracted in early December:
- Coagulation–fibrinolysis abnormalities in patients receiving antiparkinsonian agents
- Hyperhomocysteinemia in Japanese patients with convalescent stage ischemic stroke: Effect of combined therapy with folic acid and mecobalamine
- Risk factors for hip fracture among elderly patients with Parkinson’s disease
- Influence of immobilization upon calcium metabolism in the week following hemiplegic stroke
- Influence of immobilization on bone mass and bone metabolism in hemiplegic elderly patients with a long-standing stroke
- Risk factors for hip fracture among elderly patients with Alzheimer’s disease
- Amelioration by mecobalamin of subclinical carpal tunnel syndrome involving unaffected limbs in stroke patients
The papers have been cited more than 300 times collectively, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, with two dozen citations since Elsevier told Grey and COPE it would retract them.
Their retraction notices are nearly identical, and copy the “concerns” COPE summarized in a table appended to its letter. One notice stated:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief due to concerns about the integrity of the research reported. Numerous concerns have been raised and verified regarding this article, including uncertain funding, implausible recruitment, implausible laboratory testing, overlapping and duplicate data with other publications, impossible data, and implausible investigator workload.
The Editor-in-Chief no longer has confidence in this article and decided to retract it.
Grecea’s email “implied that there was not enough grounds for retracting” the remaining three papers, Grey said, although a university investigation recommended retracting one of them for authorship misconduct. The other two articles shared coauthors, including the senior author, with the paper for which the university found authorship misconduct, he said.
“Thus, it appears that Elsevier/JNS is reneging on its earlier undertaking to retract all 10 publications by the Sato/Iwamoto group,” Grey said. As he wrote in a reply to Grecea:
More broadly, 119 of Dr Sato’s publications have now been retracted. Why should readers have any confidence that any of his remaining publications are reliable? In the absence of robust evidence of reliability, they should all be retracted.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
“Given that we have made extensive efforts to find and contact all authors….”
This seems to be part of the issue that slows down the process of post-publication review. If that’s correct, the journals should implement some simple policies to fix this going forward:
1. Require institutional email addresses for corresponding author; when occasionally unavailable as an option for an author, request the email address of an institutional contact for future inquiries when correspondence to the corresponding author goes unanswered.
2. If journal policies regarding corrections and retractions will require the journal to contact all of the authors – then get all of the authors emails at the time of publication and state that it is up to the authors to retain access to those email addresses or the journal will act without requiring input from those authors who do not respond.
3. Request research integrity contacts at the corresponding author’s institution who will also be notified whenever any post-publication questions or concerns arise.
4. Give authors a time limit. I know some journals do this already. If the authors do not reply to an inquiry within 2 weeks, the journal is free to act without input from the authors.
5. If the journal hears that there is an institutional investigation and the authors cannot respond until it is complete – put an Expression of Concern on the paper right then. This will aid readers and perhaps give authors and institutions a reason to make the issue a priority. [In the recent Transmitter story about Central Michigan, one author shared his view that the slow action of the journal would help the authors have enough time to rerun experiments and convince the journal to do an extensive correction rather than a retraction. It’s fine if the journal wants to permit this, of course, but an Expression of Concern should be published while the process moves along. https://www.thetransmitter.org/retraction/after-retractions-alzheimers-scientist-is-left-cleaning-up-a-prolific-collaborators-mess/%5D
I’m just tossing these out there. I don’t think there’s any reason for investigations and decisions to take years.
They all sound good to me, but I’d add:
Could institutions offer academics an email forwarding service when they leave, so that it was easier for enquirers about their work to find them? Then if you didn’t get a prompt reply you could be sure it was by choice.
Let’s hardline it a bit and put more burden on the corresponding author(s). If there is even 1 co-author who does not offer an institutional email, the response time in point 4 shortens from 2 weeks to 24 hours. Moreover, publishers should interact with corrisponders only, it’s their duty to ensure the publication is transparent.
As Chester the Wise Cat said, if journals were more liberal in adding expressions of concern it would motivate authors to address concerns. The institutional email is trickier, because they change, especially for students and early career scientists. My thought is journals should require an institutional email at the time of submission if an institution is also claimed, but allow authors to publish private more durable emails. I know Clarivate’s manuscript management software has that built in and I expect that Elsevier’s EM system does the same. Journals should also routinely publish all author emails, not just the Corresponding Author.
Completely agree, and I wonder if this can be enforced more easily through wider use of ORCID IDs in the publication process, given that they allow for institutional along with more permanent email addresses.
Chester?!
The wise cat
I wish to know if the papers involved are published in open access journals and published by paying money which has resulted in deterioration of standards with inadequare review.