A group of researchers in Iran now have had more than 60 papers retracted for concerns about peer review and plagiarism as a publisher investigates its back catalog. One of the researchers, A. Salar Elahi, now ranks 7th on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard.
Previously, Elsevier said they would retract 26 papers from the research group at Islamic Azad University in Tehran for fake reviews in 2017 and 2018. The latest batch of 33 retracted papers originally appeared in Springer Nature’s Journal of Fusion Energy as far back as 2009.
Tim Kersjes, head of research integrity at Springer Nature told us in addition to investigating specific concerns as they arise, his unit also is running “ongoing deep-dive investigations to assess published content that has connections with content that has already been retracted for integrity concerns by ourselves or other publishers.” The recent retractions came from such an investigation that is ongoing, he said.
The retraction notices state an investigation by Springer Nature found problems “including but not limited to peer review concerns” and “significant overlap” with other published works.
The authors did not respond to correspondence regarding the retractions, the notices stated. Elahi and co-authors K. Mikaili Agah and S. Meshkani also did not respond to our request for comment.
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].
You might consider moderating your tone when you write about the retraction. A present, your tone is one of enthusiam, almost glee: Whoopi we caught another one! Such fun. Like pinball, he went tilt.
Thanks. Now I will always associate 70 retractions with the sound of a pinball machine, which is, indeed, rather fitting: http://www.videvo.net/sound-effect/pinball-05/435929/#rs=audio-title
A D what tone should they take. An occasional retraction is regrettable, but 70? That’s clearly planned gaming of the system, and I think glee at the unwinding of the scheme is appropriate to be honest.
If I were you I would ask about the reason. What is Elsevier’s role in this? And why are you so eager to ruin someone’s reputation instead of fixing the system.
Clearly the scientist not following ethical guidelines is the one ruining his reputation. Discovering this and bringing it to the attention of the scientific world is the duty of any honest researcher. And yes we should celebrate each time someone with such unethical conduct is caught.