The journal Cureus retracted an article for plagiarized images after questioning the motives of the researcher who said her images were taken.
The researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, first emailed Cureus, an open-access journal Springer Nature acquired in 2022, on August 1. She said she noticed images in the October 2023 paper, “Pediatric Acute Dacryocystitis and Orbital Cellulitis With Concurrent COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report,” came from a lecture she posted online and later removed.
“The images used in this article were edited and presented under a fabricated clinical scenario” and had been used without her permission, the researcher wrote in an email seen by Retraction Watch. She requested the journal retract the article. She also provided what she said were her original images, which were replicated in Figure 1 of the paper, and copied the corresponding author of the article.
That author, Ahmed A. Abdelaziz, of Dallah Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, responded and said the researcher’s allegation was correct. First author Saleh Ghulaysi (often spelled “Ghulaisi” by colleagues), a medical student at Jazan University in Jazan, Saudi Arabia, was “unable to provide an answer regarding the source of the image,” Abdelaziz wrote. He continued:
I had reviewed the materials provided by Saleh and trusted that they were legitimate. However, it is now evident that Saleh not only failed to provide accurate and verifiable information but also intentionally misled the co-authors and myself. Given the severity of Saleh’s misconduct, I believe the case report should be retracted, and all authors, including myself, should be held accountable.
Ghulaysi disputed that he was responsible for the image. “All my research project have been peer reviewed and answered correctly and conducted ethically,” he told Retraction Watch.
Prateek Harne, an associate editor at Cureus, said in an email reply to the anonymous researcher on August 4 the “images are copied.”
“The paper should be retracted, and the authors should be flagged,” Harne wrote.
Graham Parker, director of publishing at Cureus, told the researcher the journal’s investigation would take four to six weeks. In emails we received, the researcher questioned this timeframe, asking if six weeks was “really needed just to check that the published images are identical to the ones I sent you, and to confirm that they only replaced the color annotations?”
“I am not sure I understand your demand for urgent action?” John Adler, the editor-in-chief of the journal, told the researcher in an email. He said her “efforts to go around our process, and to apply added pressure both puzzles and even concerns me that there might be another secondary agenda at play.” He urged her to “sit back and let our process play out over the next 1-2 weeks.”
In a follow-up email, the researcher said she was copying us on the thread and “hoping that you act more seriously with scientific fraud.” Parker called the statement “insulting and offensive to the efforts of our small staff.” He then said: “you do not have the journal’s permission to share any communications with them,” referring to our organization.
After we reached out to Parker, on August 14, he emailed the researcher and said he considered her actions to be a “breach in confidentiality” and “it may in fact constitute a violation of copyright law for which you could be help [sic] legally liable.”
Cureus retracted the article the same day, citing images that were “plagiarized from an online lecture” and the authors’ inability to “verify authenticity of the patient data upon request.”
On August 15, Parker responded to our email saying the journal was “investigating this case carefully and have now retracted the paper due to plagiarism and concerns regarding the authenticity of the case data.”
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].
The title of this essay is misleading. John Adler, the editor-in-chief of the journal was very rude and aggressive, instead of being kind, apologetic, and thankful. Yet, it didn’t occur to me at all that he was trying to “gag” the researcher who complained.
Perhaps you missed this part:
I wish to be a fly on the wall in the office of Cureus’ legal department after Parker’s threat to sue.
I don’t find it rude to tell someone that they aren’t entitled to demand an expedited retraction.
Saleh Ghulaysi’s blatant theft of intellectual property is a stain on Jazan University and a disgrace to the academic reputation of Saudi Arabia! This is not just a case of academic misconduct—it’s an assault on the very principles of honesty and integrity that should define medical research. How can Jazan University and the Saudi academic system allow someone like Ghulaysi to continue unpunished? This demands immediate action! If this is the standard in Saudi academia, who knows how deep this rot goes? It’s time to expose and root out this corruption!