key: cord-0795209-rwfa35t7
authors: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.
title: Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences?
date: 2020-12-03
journal: Croat Med J
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2020.61.561
sha: 4b2b28bb2b80043995fa26f9ab04dd85f3089cd8
doc_id: 795209
cord_uid: rwfa35t7

nan

Independent scholar, Kagawa-ken, Japan jaimetex@yahoo.com Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences?

Academic publishing is increasingly threatened by unscholarly forces, including false and/or predatory entities. One serious false element are individuals that masquerade as fictitious authors by creating fictitious personalities, emails, and affiliations, sometimes misappropriating the entities of real scholars. One objective of fictitious papers is to target "predatory" (ie, illegitimate and unscholarly) as well as legitimate (ie, indexed and metricized) journals or publishers, possibly to expose flawed peer review. Some fictitious papers are retracted, but retractions are insufficient since the real individuals who created fictitious authors and papers suffer no ethical or legal consequences.

To exemplify this threat, academics should pay attention to the retraction of the "Bo Liu" et al study in Elsevier's The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology (IJB&CB). This is not a sting operation or hoax paper (1) . It is a case of unprecedented deceit that threatens academic publishing, and is a new form of "predatory publishing" in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era because it preys upon the ingenuity of open access and subscription predatory and indexed, peer-reviewed journals (2) . Predatory publishing is a waste of resources (3), a destabilizing force that disrupts "the control of scholarly communication by forprofit multi-national corporations" (4), or consumer fraud (5) . The latter was substantiated by a high-profile US Federal Trade Commission vs OMICS International case (6, 7) . Do the actions underlying the "Bo Liu" et al study fall under the False Statements Act? Are legal consequences such as criminal penalties justified in academia, which appears to be increasingly "militarized" (8)? Even though Hickman et al (9) suggested criminal liability for metrics manipulation or for coercive citation tactics by authors or editors, the criminalization of research misconduct faces multiple challenges and limitations (10) . LexisNexis, a legal firm in RELX Group, Elsevier's parent organization, appears to have suf-ficient forensic, legal, and financial resources to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

If cases like this proliferate, the ability to discern valid from invalid authors, institutions, and academic papers, will fade. The most prominent issues underlying the retracted "Bo Liu" et al paper are false and/or misappropriated authorship and institutional affiliations. Peer review can sometimes fail to identify such false elements (11) . A retraction, the evident outcome, is therefore an absolutely insufficient remediation. How many papers are there with false authors, either in "valid" (ie, indexed on a major database like PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science, or with a journalbased metric such as a journal impact factor or CiteScore), or in predatory venues? One underlying bibliometric concern is the attribution of citations to false authors and to journals that publish papers written by them (12) . Rivera (13) refers to the phenomenon of false authorship as "evil, " but the suggestion that "the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable" is disingenuous since papers with false elements, such as the "Bo Liu" et al paper, are "indexed" at Publons, suggesting that this reviewer reward platform may be part of the problem in academia, serving as a catalyst, and not just a solution (14) .

Researcher networks like Mendeley, ResearchGate, or OR-CID, an author disambiguation tool, may become untrustworthy if they are increasingly populated by false identities. The indexing of false or predatory entities may affect the accuracy and reputation of major databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science (15), or even the Retraction Watch retraction database. For example, a September 21, 2020 search on the latter database for "Liu, Bo" revealed that the false "Bo Liu" is in one of 26 entries (16 entries are false positives) involving an author named "Bo Liu. " Retraction Watch also covered this case.

Screening and detection by peers and editors was unable to prevent this paper with false elements from being published, so editors should be held accountable to some extent (16) , although editorial oversight resulting from deception by false authors should be forgiven without attaching a stigma to it (17) . The relative opacity of the retraction notice is another problem (18) .

A bevy of ethical infractions characterize the "Bo Liu" et al case: false authorship, concocted emails, misappropriated institutions, identity theft, and reputational hijacking. All of these feed into the notion that "fake" elements are increasing in academic publishing (19) . Was a paper-mill involved (20, 21) ? What is the nationality of the "Bo Liu" creators (8 out of the 10 listed "authors" have Chinese names and 4 out of the 7 listed affiliations are in China)? Was their intent to discredit Chinese academia, ie, a novel form of racism (22)? Or was the paper an act of anti-status quo (in this case Elsevier) rebellion?

IJB&CB is by many academics' standards a "respectable" journal: it has claimed peer review and a large and apparently reputable editor board, but editors' conflicts of interests are missing (23); the publisher (Elsevier) is famous and one of the largest academic publishers; it is indexed in Scopus and on about a dozen other indexes; it has a 2019 CiteScore of 3.29 and a 2019 Clarivate Analytics journal impact factor of 3.144; a rich history, and 125 volumes to boast. IJB&CB has ample characteristics of what academics might consider to be a non-predatory, white-listed, valid academic and scholarly journal (24) .

There are four retractions in IJB&CB, including the one by "Bo Liu" et al, so this is not a black swan event because IJB&CB has prior experience and should have been prepared, but was not. The "Bo Liu" et al paper has, according to Google Scholar, been cited once (25) , and access to a pirated copy at Sci-Hub might allow academics to cite it (26) . Citation of the retracted IJB&CB paper offers misleading and unfair "recognition" to its "authors" and may represent a tactical victory to the entity(ies) that created "Bo Liu" and this false paper.

The author disambiguation tool, ORCID, had (September 21, 2020) over 340 "Bo Liu" or "Liu Bo" registered, most of which are "single-use" accounts with no identifying information that could shed light on the real identity of the lead author or confirm if any of them is the "Bo Liu" of the now retracted IJB&CB paper. Since the ORCID mission failed in this case because this tool could not disambiguate real from actual or potentially false authors, ORCID may also thus begin to represent an academic threat.

Ethics groups and organizations such as Committee on Publication Ethics, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and Directory of Open Access Journals, which collectively represent thousands of publishers and journals, need to take action and assume a clear and resolute stance regarding the creators of fake elements such as false authors or emails, or individuals who misappropriate institutions because these actions cause reputational and financial damage to valid authors, journals, and publishers. In addition to labeling such actions as profoundly unethical, instituting life-time bans in affected journals and publishers, stronger detection and prevention methods need to be implemented (27) .

Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing

An alert to COVID-19 literature in predatory publishing venues

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Predatory journals in the criminal justices sciences: getting our cite on the target

Predatory publishing and cybercrime targeting academics

Predatory journals on trial: allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v

On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci-Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University

The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists

Academic misconduct and criminal liability: Manipulating academic journal impact factors

Should research misconduct be criminalized?

Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review

The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators

Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils

Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? Int Orthop

PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion

Editors moving forward: stick to academic basics, maximize transparency and respect, and enforce the rules

Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record

Retraction notices: who authored them? Publications

Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware!

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century -how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

Paper mills and on-demand publishing: Risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics. Med J Armed Forces India

Stigmatization, discrimination, racism, injustice, and inequalities in the Covid-19 era

Editors should declare conflicts of interest

Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: An assessment

Loss of PP2A disrupts the retention of radial glial progenitors in the telencephalic niche to impair the generation for late-born neurons during cortical development

Why do some retracted papers continue to be cited?

Academic fraud: Solving the crisis in modern academia