Below is the response to the Public Statement of December 14, 2010. Sections highlighted in red are from the University's Public Statement.
January 4, 2011
Dear Vice-Principal Liss,
There are a number of inaccuracies in your Research Integrity Statement of December 14, 2010 that is posted on the university website http://www.queensu.ca/vpr/news/StatementonResearchIntegrity.html. ( link removed by the University)
I would like to comment on the following paragraphs in your statement:
“A research integrity case at Queen's dating back to 2005 has been the subject of some recent media attention. The investigation determined that republication (i.e. duplication or "self-plagiarism") of materials by a retired faculty member and professor emeritus did occur. There were no findings supporting other allegations of research misconduct.”
1. The reason that you are now admitting under pressure that academic misconduct (duplication of papers) did occur is because certain records of investigation have been made public by the media. Back in 2005, Dr. Rowe (former VP (Research) concealed the truth about the outcome of investigation and informed the complainants in his letter of December 22, 2005 that there was no misconduct. Furthermore, complainants were not informed about the outcome of a review by NSERC’s Committee on Professional Scientific Integrity (CPSI).
We now know that the members of CPSI found the documents presented by the complainants provided "sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant that severe sanctions to be imposed by NSERC,...” . A copy of the NSERC’s internal memo dated June 23, 2006 confirming the conclusions reached by the CPSI members is attached and marked as Exhibit “A”.
2. Your statement that “There were no findings supporting other allegations of research misconduct.” is misleading. The records of the investigation show that many serious allegations, including allegations of data fabrication, were intentionally not investigated by the university in 2005. The following facts are particularly relevant:
(a) On November 21, 2005, NSERC instructed Dr. Rowe to investigate the allegations of data fabrication and many other allegations that I had sent to NSERC. A copy of the NSERC’s letter dated November 21, 2005 describing the nature of allegations is attached and marked as Exhibit “B”.
(b) Despite clear instructions from NSERC, allegations of data fabrication were not investigated by the university. This is confirmed by the university’s examiner in his report where he confirms that the scope of the investigation was limited to data falsification. (See attached the first page of the examiner’s report marked as Exhibit “C”). You have no record to show that allegations of data fabrication were examined.
3. It is also clear from the examiner’s report (Exhibit “C”) that he was denied access to a complete record of the data that he requested to examine the allegations of data falsification. The following facts are relevant:
(a) As stated by the examiner, “...a complete compilation of all the experimental results, including those deemed invalid, were not available for examination.”
(b) According to the examiner, the accused researcher was not able to satisfy his request for a complete record of the data for all the samples produced and sent to the Canadian Space Agency (CSA).
(c) Both the Vice -Principal (Research) and the accused researcher were fully aware of the report submitted to CSA in 2000 (PW &GS File No. 9F007-4-6028/01- ST “Diffusion in Liquid” Project 4-0026) that contained the complete record of the data requested by the examiner. Despite this, it was claimed in a letter dated October 28, 2005 that the requested information could not be found. A copy of the October 28, 2005 letter is attached and marked as Exhibit “D”. Critical data that were required to examine the allegations of data falsification were withheld from the examiner, as if the university was not accountable to the public.
4. The university’s investigation in 2005 had no credibility. We now know that the examiner and the assessor (Dr. Mc Latchie) were both selected with the approval of the accused researcher. According to NSERC documents released under the access-to-information act, the university investigation was not sufficiently at arm’s length and the university’s report lacked thoroughness (see Exhibit “E”).
5. The research integrity case is not limited to complaints made in 2005. It also involves many new complaints that were brought to the university’s attention in 2009-2010. The new allegations are concerned with fabricated and falsified data in numerous articles published in 2007, 2008, and 2009. What makes the research integrity case serious is the size of contracts with CSA that have been affected by the falsified and fabricated data, and the fact that the records in numerous journals have not yet been corrected for the scientific community.
“The results of the university's investigation were accepted by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the federal granting council that was supporting the individual's research.”
1. Contrary to your assertion, the results of the university’s investigation were unacceptable to NSERC. A copy of the NSERC’s letter dated July26, 2006 expressing dissatisfaction with the university’s investigation is attached and marked as Exhibit “E”.
2. The most serious allegations (data fabrication and falsification) are related to research funded by CSA, and not NSERC.
“Appropriate steps were taken pursuant to the university's research integrity policy at the time, including instructing the retired faculty member – who has acknowledged duplicating and republishing material - to contact the relevant journals.”
Contrary to your claim, appropriate steps were not taken by the university. If anything, the university tried hard to conceal the abuses. The university failed to act firmly and in a transparent manner in dealing with misconduct. The following facts are particularly prominent:
1.There is no evidence whatsoever in the university’s investigation report to show that the university took the appropriate steps to instruct the accused researcher to correct the research records in the relevant journals.
2. Dr. Rowe concealed the outcome of the investigation from the complainants in 2005 and claimed that there was no academic misconduct. How can you take appropriate steps to correct the research record if you deny the misconduct? There are over 20 papers with bogus authorship that are duplicated and recycled from old materials. Often the original co-authors are removed or new names are added to give the impression to the grant reviewers that duplicated papers are new contributions. And still the university maintains that there was no intent to mislead.
Because of university failure to deal with misconduct, I had to spend considerable time over the last 5 years communicating with the journal editors to retract the misleading papers (4 papers retracted so far) and warned the scientific community in peer reviewed papers not to trust the space research data coming out of Queen’s University. You should not hold the members of the Queen’s community responsible for reporting suspected misconduct if you have no intention to properly investigate the allegations.
3. There is no evidence whatsoever that the university took appropriate steps to correct the inflated publication record in grant applications after NSERC’s Staff expressed concern that “existing grants may have been obtained on the basis of an exaggerated publication record.”
4. NSERC’s documents clearly show that the remedial actions taken by the university was in NSERC’s opinion, “rather minor in light of the many breaches of publication practices.....” A copy of the NSERC’s internal memo dated June 23, 2006, confirming NSERC’s concerns with the university’s remedial actions is attached and marked as Exhibit “A”.
“At the request of the complainant, the university has reviewed the case on numerous occasions. It has been determined that all the information contained in these subsequent allegations referred to the same matters that had been investigated and disposed of in 2005. As recently as August 2010, the university and NSERC concluded that the case was closed.”
Your claim that “all the information contained in these subsequent allegations referred to the same matters that had been investigated and disposed of in 2005” is false. The following facts are relevant:
1. The new allegations lodged in 2009-2010 are concerned with papers published in 2007, 2008 and 2009. These papers did not exist in 2005.
2. The most serious allegations that were lodged in 2009-2010 (falsification and fabrication of data) are related to space research and experiments known as ‘Queen’s University Experiments in Liquid Diffusion’ that were conducted onboard MIR and the US Shuttles. The research was funded by the Canadian Space Agency over many years through contracts with Queen’s University. NSERC was not the source of funding for research and in fact in many cases NSERC determined in 2009-2010 that the issue did not fall under NSERC’s purview.
3. Contrary to your assertion, it is clear from recently released documents from NSERC, that the university did not investigate many of the allegations in 2005, including allegations of data fabrication. It is clear that the university administration swept the abuses under the carpet in 2005 and is now attempting to cover up the new cases of academic misconduct that have come to light in 2009-2010.
The scale of misconduct is remarkable; fabricated and falsified data are extensively used in thesis work, progress reports, and more than 15 journal articles and conference proceedings.
A credible and independent investigative committee should look into the serious allegations against the university and the accused researcher.
Sincerely,
M. Shirkhanzadeh
Little Office of Research Integrity 