BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Klaas van Dijk" data-source="post: 3596232" data-attributes="member: 115771">I noted a research integrity issue related to the efforts to retract both fraudulent articles on the Basra Reed Warbler with one of the members of the editorial board of the journal 'Research Integrity and Peer Review' <a href="https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/" target="_blank">https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/</a> I have therefore contacted on 12 July 2017 the rather recently appointed Editor-in-Chief Dr. Joerg Meerpohl about this issue. Dr. Meerpohl is one of the Editors-in-Chief of this journal and co-director of Cochrane Germany, <a href="http://www.cochrane.de/welcome" target="_blank">http://www.cochrane.de/welcome</a> and <a href="http://www.open-project.eu/project-partners" target="_blank">http://www.open-project.eu/project-partners</a>I have in the meanwhile extensive experiences that communicating about the main findings of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> with editors and others in the publication industry, and in the widest possible sense, is extremely difficult. In other words, it is almost impossible to communicate with editors and others in the publication industry, and in the widest possible sense, about the main findings of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> (so often 'no response' and 'no response' and 'no response', etc, and/or sometimes responses without substance and with comments like 'this case is closed', etc.). It is on the other hand very fortunate that editors and others in the publication industry, and in the widest possible sense, are very used to communicate with each other and with 3th parties through the concept of 'tacit approval within a fixed period of time' (for example one working day, or five working days, etc). In other words, communicating with each other through the concept of 'tacit approval within a fixed period of time' is common practice within the field of publication ethics and for people who are active in the publication industry, and in the widest possible sense.I have therefore sent Dr. Meerpohl the next day, on 13 July 2017, a follow-up with backgrounds and with a proposal to communicate with me about the main findings of the report 'Final investigation on serious allegations of fabricated and/or falsified data in Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) - 1 July 2016' at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> within the framework of tacit approval within a fixed period of time.  I received the same day a response from Dr. Meerpohl in which he told me to look into this issue and to come back with me in due time. Dr. Meerpohl did not mention in this response that he had objections to work within the framework of tacit approval within a fixed period of time when communicating with me about the main findings of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> Dr. Meerpohl listed in this response also no objections against the statement in my first email of that day to him in which it is stated: "Dr. Meerpohl supports the main findings of the 'Final Investigation' at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> that Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) contains fabricated and/or falsified data and that therefore Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) must be retracted, and as soon as possible."I received on 27 July 2017 a follow-up from Dr. Meerpohl. Dr. Meerpohl told me in this follow-up that he had consulted with other Editors-in-Chief of the journal about the research integrity issue with one of the members of the editorial board. He told me that they had decided to consider this matter as closed. Dr. Meerpohl once again did not object in this email of 27 July 2017 that I am allowed to communicate with him about the main findings of the 'Final Investigation' at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> within the framework of tacit approval within a fixed period of time. It can therefore be concluded that it is correct to state that Dr. Joerg Meerpohl, the co-director of Cochrane Germany and one of the Editors-in-Chief of the journal 'Research Integrity and Peer Review' "supports the main findings of the Final Investigation at <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> that Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) contains fabricated and/or falsified data and that therefore Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) must be retracted, and as soon as possible."It is towards my opinion a major set-back for Editor-in-Chief and German citizen Dr. Max Kasparek that he now must accept that also the co-director of Cochrane Germany, as well one of the Editors-in-Chief of the journal 'Research Integrity and Peer Review', supports the main findings of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33827046" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/33827046</a> that Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) contains fabricated and/or falsified data and that therefore Al-Sheikhly et al. (2013, 2015) must be retracted, and as soon as possible.Dr. Kasparek and/or anyone else has until now not responded / commented on <a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3594282&postcount=26" target="_blank">http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3594282&postcount=26</a></blockquote>

Verification