Correspondence with Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds, Editor-in-Chief,
Invertebrate Biology (formerly - Transactions of the American Microscopical
society)
************
Request to retract an article Thursday, March
27, 2008 10:40 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: preynold@hamilton.edu
To: Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds, Editor-in-Chief, Invertebrate
Biology
From: Michael Pyshnov
March 27, 2008
Request to retract the article "Cell Patterns Associated
with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs
of Drosophila" by Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn, published in Trans.
Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989.
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
I am writing to inform you that the article "Cell Patterns
Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal
Discs of Drosophila" represents a plagiarised version of my unpublished
research and to request a retraction of this article. Below, are the grounds
for my request.
1. On April 14, 1987, the TAMS received the manuscript "Cell
Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver Stained
Drosophila Imaginal Discs" (MS #483-87) which was written and submitted
by Ellen Larsen (Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Canada),
(presently - Department of Cell and Systems Biology). Ellen Larsen stated
the names of the authors as Michael Pyshnov and Ellen Larsen. (The manuscript
is scanned here: http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc11.htm ) The manuscript
was accepted for publication
(http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc14.htm ).
For five years (1981-1986) Ellen Larsen was the supervisor
of my PhD research. In January of 1986, however, she terminated my PhD
program and removed me from the university. Several months later, Ellen
Larsen submitted this MS to TAMS. She did it without my knowledge, but,
in July of 1987 she asked me to sign the Copyright Transfer ( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc15.htm
) as my signature was requested by the journal. I refused to sign the Copyright
Transfer, first of all, because Ellen Larsen had contributed nothing to
the scientific content of the work or to the ideas behind it. The second
reason for my refusal was that the MS was of poor quality and it was a
completely inadequate presentation of my research (even the number of experiments
was not stated). The MS was written in a manner of a claim; it described,
quite superficially, the results of my research of five years (two main
discoveries made by me). It became clear to me that her goal was only to
introduce her name as the co-author of the discoveries that she never made.
I was outraged and complained to the Department protesting her authorship
( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc16.htm). In answer to my complaint,
the Department informed me that Ellen Larsen had withdrawn the article
from publication ( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc20.htm ).
Ellen Larsen and the university made no attempt to argue
that my research should be published because of its scientific value: only
a year and a half before that, the scientific value of my research was
denied, I was told that my research cannot constitute a PhD thesis and
my PhD program was terminated. However, when I was no longer in the laboratory,
Ellen Larsen began to publish, without my knowledge, the results of my
research as her own. At the time when I was asked to sign the Copyright
Transfer for the publication in TAMS, I had no idea that Ellen Larsen had
already plagiarised my discoveries in another article with another co-author
(Larsen, E. and McLaughlin, H.M.G. 1987 The Morphogenetic Alphabet: Lessons
for Simple-Minded Genes., BioEssays, 7(3): 130-132.). And, she had already
sent another article for publication with yet another co-author (Mathi,
S.K. and Larsen, E. 1988 Patterns of Cell Division in Imaginal Discs of
Drosophila., Tissue & Cell, 20(3): 461-472.) in which my ideas were
plagiarised.
=====
2. When I refused to publish with her the above MS, Ellen
Larsen decided to claim authorship of the discoveries in a "new"
article. She wrote a letter to the Editor of TAMS stating that she wanted
to withdraw the MS, but saying: "I intend, however, to submit the
results of a similar study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in
the very near future..." She did not inform the Editor of the true
reasons for my refusal to publish the MS. I had no idea about this letter,
and only several years later I was given, by the University of Toronto,
a copy of it, reproduced below:
September 16, 1987
Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz, Editor- Transactions of the American
- Microscopical Society
- Department of Zoology
- University of Arkansas
- Fayettville, Arkansas 72701
- USA
Dear Dr. Schmitz,
I am writing with reference to MS 483-87. I regret that owing
to circumstances I shall outline below, I must withdraw this manuscript
from consideration. I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar
study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future,
one which because of its somewhat wider scope may actually be a more satisfying
contribution.
The first author of MS 483-87, Mr. M. Pyshnov was a graduate
student under my supervision for some five years. In my opinion he is a
very creative scientist with great technical flair. Unfortunately, after
discovering disc specific cell arrangements and their modification in a
homeotic mutant he became unable to do more research. A year after he produced
his last preparations (those found in the MS) his graduate student status
was changed to "lapsed student", ie, one who is free to return
to complete requirements but who is no longer officially registered. I
was hoping that publication of his work would encourage him and enable
him to resume his progress towards a degree. Unfortunately he has changed
his mind and decided for reasons of his own that he does not want his work
published. I am not only disappointed with his decision but embarrassed
to have to retract the work after so many other people have given it their
expert time and effort.
In the new paper I shall try to incorporate both the reviewers'
and your excellent stylistic suggestions so that these efforts will not
have been entirely wasted.
Sincerely,- /signature/
- Ellen Larsen
The letter is stamped "Office of the Chairman Department
of Zoology University of Toronto" with the date SEP 16 1987. The letter
is scanned here: http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc19.htm
In this letter Ellen Larsen admitted that in my research
on the imaginal discs of Drosophila I discovered "disc specific cell
arrangements and their modification in a homeotic mutant". These two
discoveries were the subject of the withdrawn MS. She also admitted that
the experiments described in the MS were performed by me. In her own words,
repeated four times, the research in the MS was "his work". She
made no claims whatsoever to the authorship of any part of the research,
ideas and discoveries reported in the withdrawn MS.
=====
3. The Transactions of the American Microscopical Society
published, in 1989 (Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57) the article
"Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in
Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila" under the names of
Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn. ( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc21.htm
)
The comparison of this article with the withdrawn MS shows
that the discoveries reported in the withdrawn MS and admitted by Ellen
Larsen in her letter to the Editor of TAMS to be my discoveries, are claimed
in the 1989 article by Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn as their own discoveries.
=====
4. The Discussion in 1989 article opens thus: "In the
course of the last six years, hundreds of discs from non-Ns larvae have
been silver stained" ("non-Ns" here means normal, wild-type
larvae). Here, the authors claim, as their own, hundreds of experiments
that, in fact, were done by me.
=====
5. The 1989 article contains this footnote:
"We thank Drs. H. McLaughlin, K. Wright, and B.
Goodwin, as well as S. Mathi, for discussion of this work. We are further
grateful to Dr. N. Rivaud for help with the plates and with editorial assistance.
We thank Michael Pyshnov for sharing his silver staining technique and
his ideas with us."
The part of this footnote relating to my "sharing"
of ideas with the authors is clearly fraudulent:
a) Ellen Larsen had the knowledge of my ideas as she
was my PhD supervisor for five years. I did not "share" my ideas
with her later. I did not know Aaron Zorn.
b) The "sharing" here fraudulently implies
permission to publish, identical in meaning to making a "personal
communication". In fact, however, I protested publishing the MS by
Ellen Larsen with her name as a co-author, and her answer to this was the
withdrawal of the MS. This fact is not in the footnote.
c) Acknowledging my "sharing" of ideas without
attributing any specific idea used in this article to me, is a fraud. As
an acknowledgement, it is meaningless.
=====
6. The withdrawn MS contained reference to my previous paper
published in 1980 (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 87: 189-200). There
is no reference to this paper in the 1989 article.
Yet, my paper in JTB was admitted by the University of Toronto
and Ellen Larsen to be "the theoretical foundation of Pyshnov's studies"
( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc36.htm See paragraph 22). Omission
of the reference is a part of the fraud.
=====
7. Another document that was given to me, also, years later,
by the University of Toronto is the letter of Ellen Larsen to the Chair
of the Department, giving her comments on my accusation of misconduct (
http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc25.htm ). Below, I will show the discrepancies
and lies in her comments, as they are related to the plagiarism in the
1989 article.
In the first part ("the alleged plagiarism"), Ellen
Larsen says: "The papers in question deal with the significance of
cell arrangement patterns which Michael discovered in fly imaginal discs.
I suggested that one could look at mutations which change the type of appendage
produced and see if the mutant also changed the cell arrangement patterns."
First, not only the "significance" of my discoveries
is reported in the "papers in question", but the very discoveries
are reported as the original results in both papers (see, below, the statements
made in the abstracts).
Second, not only did I discover the cell arrangement patterns,
but I, as it can be seen in Larsen's first recommendation for my scholarship,
"...reviewed an extensive Drosophila literature, outlined an entirely
novel approach to looking at morphogenesis in imaginal discs..." (
http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc02.htm ).
In the other recommendation, Larsen said: "He has hypothesized
that each disc should have specific cell arrangements which are "prepatterns"
of the adult structures." and: "The work which remains... how
the rules are modified when genes are introduced which convert a disc for,
say, an antenna to a disc producing a leg... Pyshnov's demonstrated creativity
in conceiving of this novel approach plus his superb technical skills uniquely
qualify him to carry out these studies of far reaching significance..."
( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc04.htm )
It is clear that my discoveries were not accidental. They
were the result of my new approach to the problem of morphogenesis, where
I predicted the existence of organ-specific cell arrangements in the imaginal
discs that develop into different organs and predicted that mutant discs
developing into organs normally located in the other parts of the body,
must have the cell arrangement specific for the organ into which they actually
develop. I presented this theory and the experimental design to Ellen Larsen,
and then - to the Graduate Committee. This was approved as my thesis project
( http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/doc01.htm ).
Ellen Larsen is lying when she is trying to present my discoveries
as accidental and she claims to have made a suggestion to "look at
mutations which change the type of appendage produced and see if the mutant
also changed the cell arrangement patterns."
Ellen Larsen continues her story: "In the retracted
work, wild-type discs were compared to mutant discs, in the second paper,
discs from two mutant strains were compared..."
Ellen Larsen presents a web of lies in her comments. Giving
a justification for publishing the 1989 article, she says that she made
a suggestion to compare mutant and normal discs, but, in the next sentence,
she denies that the 1989 article compared mutant and normal (wild-type)
discs at all.
She says that the 1989 article compared "discs from
two mutant strains". This is, again, not entirely true: the mutant
disc from the second mutant was not analysed. She only reports looking
at normal discs in the second mutant. Not a word about the second mutant
is said in the abstract. And, of course, contrary to what she says, this
article did report comparing wild-type discs with mutant discs and this
was reported as the original results. In fact, the 1989 article is a repeat
of the withdrawn MS.
The abstracts of both, the withdrawn MS and the 1989 article,
show that in both articles wild-type (i.e. normal) discs were compared
to mutant discs, and in both articles this was presented as the original
results.
Each of the two abstracts contains four points:
a) My silver staining technique.
b) My first discovery.
c) My second discovery.
d) Significance of the discoveries.
And, in the two abstracts, the corresponding points have
identical meaning.
Here is how the abstracts describe the discoveries:
My first discovery (comparing discs developing into different
organs in normal larvae): In the withdrawn MS: "Disc-specific cell
arrays were found in each type of disc studied." In the 1989 article
(under the names of Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn): "Leg discs differ
from antennal discs in the kind of cell arrangement found."
My second discovery (comparing the disc in the normal larvae,
which develops into antenna, with the same disc in the mutant larvae, which
develops into a leg): In the withdrawn MS: "...we compared normal
antennal disc patterns with those of the Nasobemia mutant in which antennae
are transformed into leg-like structures. The cell arrangement of mutant
antenna discs resembles the one specific for leg discs but not antenna
discs." In the 1989 article (under the names of Ellen Larsen and Aaron
Zorn): "The arrangements in the antennal disc of the Nasobemia mutant
(in which antennae are converted to leg-like structures) resemble those
of leg discs rather than antenna discs."
Ellen Larsen also says that in 1989 article "the effects
of temperature on cell patterns were also examined". I can only say
that, if Larsen and Zorn did these experiments, their results only confirmed
the same results obtained by me earlier. Larsen, indeed, proposed that
I should do this, since it was known that at 29 degrees Celsius the effect
of the mutation is partially reversed. The possible explanation of the
effect of higher temperature on cell arrangement, as it is reported in
1989 article, was offered by me. However, Ellen Larsen chose not to report
this part of my research (as well as many other parts) in the withdrawn
MS, thus, the comparison with the MS does not show it as done by me.
The last part of Larsen's explanation is this: "The
results of the second paper corroborate the first hence the similarity
in conclusions presented in the two abstracts. I can see no justification
for calling this plagiarism."
However, the authors did not say in the 1989 article that
the same results were obtained by another author earlier. And this is called
plagiarism. The 1989 article was published as an original research which
it was not.
=====
8. In the second part of Larsen's letter to the Chair of
the Department (Larsen's own "concept of intellectual property")
she uses the most fraudulent language extolling the "culture of science"
and at the same time perverting the facts and the rules of academia.
Here is an example of this fraudulent language. She says:
"I gather that Michael Pyshnov believes that he "owns" the
finding of cell patterns in discs and can suppress the use of ideas or
subsequent experiments flowing from this discovery."
The fact, however, is that she did not use the ideas "flowing"
from my discovery, but she plagiarised my ideas on which my discovery was
based; the same applies to her "subsequent" experiments: she
plagiarised the experiments that were already done by me.
Instead of making a confession in the face of documents proving
plagiarism, she continues her fraud in an obscene celebration of the success
of her fraud and her victory over the victim of her fraud. She is practically
admitting that she published my research, and says that she had a right
to do this. The fact, however, remains that in the 1989 article she claimed
authorship of the discoveries that she never made. There is no satisfactory
explanation of what she did, other than bold plagiarism, a falsification
of the fact of authorship.
=====
There are more documents on my web site "University
of Toronto Fraud" at http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/ There are
also matters related to my attempts in Canada to return my research under
my name and to stop the fraud. However, the documents related to these
matters might not be needed to confirm the plagiarism in the 1989 article
in TAMS. I do not know if you need other information for the case. I certainly
will supply the additional information. I am sending you now the printed
copy of this letter, (the e-mail is convenient for looking at the documents
on-line). Please, tell me if you need a printed copy of the documents.
My research ended in 1986. I published two papers in the
Journal of Theoretical Biology and several other papers on the subject
of cell proliferation before starting my PhD research. My recent work (2005),
(containing the computer program made by a colleague) is on the Internet
at www.cell-division-program.com This program gives, for the first time,
a 3-D model of cell arrangement, division and movement in the crypt of
intestinal epithelium; it represents the tissue as an integral structure
where cells are connected with each other.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
4 Dromore Cres.,
North York,
Ontario M2R 2H5
Canada
Phone: 416 733 8936
************
Re: Request to retract an article Thursday, April
3, 2008 12:27 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: preynold@hamilton.edu
April 3, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
On March 27, I sent you my request to retract the article
"Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in
Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila" by Ellen Larsen and
Aaron Zorn, published in Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989.
I hope that the usual investigative procedure and communications
should apply in this case. I am asking you to let me know what steps you
have taken and/or you plan to take.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Thursday, April
3, 2008 12:58 PM From: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Hello Michael,
I will raise this with the editors at our next conference
call. These meetings only happen periodically, and I am uncertain when
the next one will be, but I'll be sure to circulate your letter and get
their feedback.
Sincerely, Patrick Reynolds
************
Re: Request to retract an article Friday, April
4, 2008 2:13 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
April 4, 2008
Hello Dr. Reynolds,
I thank you very much for your efforts and I am looking forward
for the fair review of my case.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Monday, July
21, 2008 11:01 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
July 21, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
Can you, please, let me know about the progress of my case?
I would like to stay informed of the stage of your investigation, so, that
if any questions arise I would be able to provide references to documents,
clarifications, etc. timely, which I think is very important.
I hope that I did not miss any messages on my email. I include
our previous correspondence below.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Monday, July
21, 2008 11:15 AM From: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
To: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca
Hello Michael,
I have brought your case to the attention of the editors.
Man6y are away in the field during the summer, and I am not sure when we
will be able to discuss it; our annual meeting is in January, which will
be the next time we are together for a meeting.
Best wishes, Pat Reynolds
************
RE: Request to retract an article Tuesday, July
22, 2008 9:59 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
July 22, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
I am happy to hear that you have brought my case to the attention
of the editors. I understood from your message of April 3, 2008, that you
can get the editors' feedback and discuss the case at a conference call.
I am very disappointed that this is changed and you now refer to the annual
meeting in January. Does this mean that some question you wish to put to
the editors can only be answered once a year?
I understand from reading the procedures set by the publishers
for the cases of alleged plagiarism, that it is your decision, as the Editor-in-Chief,
whether to retract the article or not. I also understand that your first
steps would be to check the articles in question for plagiarism and, if
you find it, to inform the authors of the allegedly plagiarised article
of my complaint. Since these steps do not involve other editors, I did
hope that this has been already done.
If the procedure that you have adopted is different from
the one above, please, inform me. In particular, what is the time frame
for the procedure that you have adopted?
I assume that, so far, there is no argument against my allegations
of plagiarism, otherwise, I of course, should have been given the opportunity
to answer such argument.
I thank you for your good wishes. My former co-authors constantly
urge me to write up my research. But every time I start doing this, I find
that I need this research back under my name. I really need your answers
to all these questions above.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
Re: Request to retract an article Friday, September
5, 2008 3:16 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
September 5, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
On July 22, 2008, I sent you a message (quoted below), but
I did not receive an answer. I suppose you were on holydays. Please, let
me know what do you think about my questions related to the procedure.
Here is my previous letter:
I am happy to hear that you have brought my case to the attention
of the editors. I understood from your message of April 3, 2008, that you
can get the editors' feedback and discuss the case at a conference call.
I am very disappointed that this is changed and you now refer to the annual
meeting in January. Does this mean that some question you wish to put to
the editors can only be answered once a year?
I understand from reading the procedures set by the publishers
for the cases of alleged plagiarism, that it is your decision, as the Editor-in-Chief,
whether to retract the article or not. I also understand that your first
steps would be to check the articles in question for plagiarism and, if
you find it, to inform the authors of the allegedly plagiarised article
of my complaint. Since these steps do not involve other editors, I did
hope that this has been already done.
If the procedure that you have adopted is different from
the one above, please, inform me. In particular, what is the time frame
for the procedure that you have adopted?
I assume that, so far, there is no argument against my allegations
of plagiarism, otherwise, I of course, should have been given the opportunity
to answer such argument.
I thank you for your good wishes. My former co-authors constantly
urge me to write up my research. But every time I start doing this, I find
that I need this research back under my name. I really need your answers
to all these questions above.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
On September
29, I called Dr. Reynolds on the phone in
his office. During about 1/2 hour conversation, I expressed my concerns
about the delay in the procedure and asked why the letter to the author
of the article, Ellen Larsen, has not been sent yet. Dr. Reynolds, six
months after receiving my request for the retraction of the article, said
that he does not know the procedure, although he mentioned that one of
the editors, indeed, advised him to contact University of Toronto.
Yet, Dr. Reynolds is a member of
the Council of Science Editors and he is the Chair of the Scientific
Misconduct Review Board at Hamilton College.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Tuesday, September
30, 2008 9:11 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
September 30, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
Thank you for listening to my concerns yesterday.
I am sending you the link to the current Wiley-Blackwell
web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp
The relevant items are:
#20. What is the situation regarding plagiarism? ("Dealing
with misconduct" and "Available sanctions")
#21. What is the situation regarding retractions?
They also use the Flowcharts from the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE): http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/flow-charts/cope-flowcharts-optimal.pdf/download
The relevant is the Flowchart 4b, "What to do if you suspect plagiarism,
(b) Suspected plagiarism in a published article".
One of your editors who suggested that you contact the corresponding
author (in this case, Ellen Larsen) was correct. The steps in the investigation
are set out pretty straightforward.
Another point that we talked about yesterday: Wiley-Blackwell
policy does not set limit on when the article was published.
I hope this will be helpful.
Thank you again,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Thursday, October
2, 2008 5:00 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
October 2, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
I have found an additional link, this one to Elsevier web
page, but there should not be any principal differences; Wiley and Elsevier
cooperate, in particular, in the area of combatting plagiarism. The URL
is: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorshome.editors/2_Plagiarism_complaints
It is very important that they stress the following: "Complainant
must be made aware that matter cannot be investigated unless at some point
the journal Editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author
(due process)"
On this page, there is a link to the Letter Form that should
be sent to the author of the article: http://www.elsevier.com/framework_editors/PERK/PDFs/Form_letters/Form_Letter_A.pdf
I give the copy of the Letter Form below.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Michael Pyshnov
Form Letter A
Communication to author
[letterhead of the journal editorial office or the Editor’s
general contact information] [date]
[title of article, date of publication]
Dear [author]
Concern has been raised about the publication of the
article listed above, for which you are the corresponding author. As the
editor of the journal, I must take seriously any allegation raised that
if true would violate the journal’s policies (set out in our ethical statements,
instructions to the author, and the like).
[The substance of the complaint is that {description},
which if true, would violate our publishing policies.] OR [Attached you
will find a copy of the communication which raises the concern noted.]
Please provide me a prompt and full response within 30
days, which I will also [discuss/share] with the party raising this concern.
Depending on the nature of your response, I should also
inform you that I [may OR also] consider it necessary to inform and involve
the research institution at which the underlying research took place [or
is alleged to have taken place], and [possibly] the funding agency that
supported the research [or that allegedly supported the research].
Please note that if we do not have an adequate and timely
response, we may be forced to conclude that the allegations are truthful.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Very truly yours,
[Editor name]
[Editor-in-chief]
************
RE: Request to retract an article Wednesday, October
8, 2008 9:06 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
October 8, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
I am disappointed that you are not answering my emails and
I would like to ask you if you are committed to sending, without further
delay, the letter with my complaint to Ellen Larsen and demanding a prompt
and full response.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Friday, October
31, 2008 8:32 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
October 31, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
As you know, I have corresponded with Ms. Jennifer Lynch,
Science Editor at Wiley-Blackwell.
Ms. Lynch has informed me that you have been researching
my request thoroughly and that you are presently striving to respond to
me.
I, therefore, believe that you are now familiar with the
evidence, and you have done the first step - finding documentary evidence
of plagiarism. I am asking you to forward to me the response of Ellen Larsen
as soon as you will get it.
Please, confirm to me what steps have been taken and what
stage of the procedure you are now in.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Please, find attached below my letter to Ms. Lynch.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
===
October 31, 2008
Dear Ms. Lynch,
Unfortunately, your letter of October 30, 2008 did not directly
answer my concern about the delay in the article retraction procedure that
was the subject of my letter of October 16, 2008 and, again, of October
29, 2008.
You have not answered my repeated question about the timeline
for the article retraction procedure. You do not deny that I am entitled
to receive this information, but you do not offer an explanation as to
why you did not answer this question.
You said that you only believe that the delay in the process
has occurred because "Dr. Reynolds has been researching your request
thoroughly and seeking advice so that his decision is well informed and
grounded in ethical precedent."
I submit to you that while the above is certainly reassuring,
the first steps in the procedure adopted by Wiley-Blackwell (the COPE Flowchart
4: "What to do if you suspect plagiarism, (b) Suspected plagiarism
in a published article"), i. e. what should be done before the Editor's
letter is sent to the lead author of the affected article and the author
is asked for a prompt response to my allegations, took too long - seven
months.
I thank you for informing me that Dr. Reynolds is striving
to respond to me presently. And, therefore, I would like to believe that
the causes for delaying the due process are now behind us. If this proves
to be too naive, I will proceed to further and wider consultations with
scientific community.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
************
RE: Request to retract an article Monday, November
24, 2008 2:11 PM From: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
To: "'Michael Pyshnov'" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
Your request to retract an article published in Transactions
of the American Microscopical Society in 1989 and the history of this issue
on your website have now both been thoroughly reviewed, and full consideration
has been given to your request with reference to Wiley-Blackwell policies
pertaining to charges of plagiarism and retraction of articles (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/bauthor/faqs_copyright.asp#1.20
and http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/bauthor/faqs.asp#policy, respectively).
I have corresponded with Dr. Larsen, and consulted representatives of our
co-publishers, The American Microscopical Society and Wiley-Blackwell,
and former and current editors. We investigate complaints with scrupulous
fairness, due to the potential for great harm to an author's career and
reputation. Given that the charge of plagiarism in this article against
Dr. Larsen has been dismissed by three investigations of the employer,
the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency
NSERC, and in the absence of any new substantive information in the nearly
two decades since publication in TAMS, the journal has no grounds to retract
the article, nor to consider its removal or withdrawal. Despite your evident
dissatisfaction with those investigations, neither the journal nor its
co-publishers have standing to challenge their legitimacy.
It is worth noting that it is standard practice to discourage
removal of an article, as discussed in the International Association of
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers guidelines on "Preservation
of the Objective Record of Science," (see document 2006-03, at http://www.stm-assoc.org).
Accordingly, we also attach importance to maintaining the integrity and
completeness of the scholarly record for researchers and librarians.
Our policies have been designed with all referenced concerns
in mind, and are based on current best practice in the scholarly and library
communities.
Sincerely,
Patrick D. Reynolds, Ph.D.
************
RE: Request to retract an article Thursday, November
27, 2008 8:05 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Patrick D. Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
November 27, 2008
Dear Dr. Reynolds,
You explain your decision not to retract the 1989 Larsen
and Zorn article thus:
"Given that the charge of plagiarism in this article
against Dr. Larsen has been dismissed by three investigations of the employer,
the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency
NSERC, and in the absence of any new substantive information in the nearly
two decades since publication in TAMS, the journal has no grounds to retract
the article, nor to consider its removal or withdrawal. Despite your evident
dissatisfaction with those investigations, neither the journal nor its
co-publishers have standing to challenge their legitimacy."
(Please, notice that the repeated references in your letter
to removal and withdrawal of an article are excessive as I never asked
for the removal or withdrawal of the paper, but only for the retraction.)
I submit to you the following:
1. You should have presented your own findings of facts with
references to evidence and the applications of law. The procedure required
you, in the first step, to compare the articles in question for plagiarism.
But you do not report your findings. Instead, you made an assumption that
the local Canadian investigations denying plagiarism are legitimate, and
you never mentioned a single point of evidence that could constitute the
grounds for your decision. This was completely wrong. Your decision should
not have been based on the supposed "legitimacy" of Canadian
local investigations.
2. According to the procedure (Flowchart 4b of the COPE)
you should have sent me the response of E. Larsen, so that I could make
my comments, but you did not do this. I request that you do so now.
3. Your statement that you have no "standing to challenge
their [local investigations] legitimacy" is completely erroneous.
It is a well known fact that local investigations can cover up misconduct
in research, and, in this case they have no "legitimacy". They
cannot be blindly accepted. A journal's conclusions can potentially be
totally different from the conclusions of the local investigators, but
you made this legitimate possible outcome to appear illegitimate, forbidden
and impossible, as you refused to challenge the "legitimacy"
of Canadian investigations. While you could consult local investigations,
you could not pronounce them legitimate a priory, otherwise, you make your
own procedure and the due process impossible. Of course you have an obligation
to conduct your own independent investigation of the documentary evidence
in the case. And, if your findings contradict the local investigations,
but you refuse to challenge them, you can find yourself doing greater harm
- even perpetuating a local fraud. You are required by the procedure to
send your own findings to the local employer and the funding agency. Did
you send them their own investigations instead?
4. Blindly accepting the results of Canadian investigations
of misconduct was wrong:
a) The special report of Prof. Arthurs on the case of
Prof. V. Fabrikant (http://pyshnov.wordpress.com/arthurs-report/), stated
that two university investigations were "misleading", "superficial",
"not based on a proper inquiry", "clearly and seriously
deficient" and "inadequate".
b) Recently, Canadian Medical Association Journal published
the paper "Call for arm’s-length national research integrity agency"
(http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/6/749). It starts thus: "It's
the classic Canadian response to a problem like scientific misconduct,
says Toronto physician– scientist Dr. Paul Pencharz. "Deny, deny,
deny. Sweep it under the carpet."
c) Next, the editorial titled "Research misconduct?
What misconduct?", in the same journal (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/176/7/905)
asked: "Why has Canada lagged so far behind its Western counterparts
in establishing comprehensive mechanisms and processes to deal with scientific
misconduct?", and it said: "Let’s not wait for the next scandal."
"Deny, deny, deny" is "the classic Canadian
response", not an exception, and this is well known. The system of
investigations in Canada is below the standards that you and your journal
have to adhere to.
5. I must also bring to your attention the fact that your
impression that there were "three investigations of the employer,
the University of Toronto, and again by the Canadian federal funding agency
NSERC" is incorrect. The University of Toronto President lied when
he said that my complaint was "fully investigated by the University
and by NSERC" (document #43). As a matter of fact, NSERC did not investigate
my complaint and does not investigate other complaints. NSERC sends the
complaints back to the university. The CMAJ article, referred to in the
paragraph 5c, said: "Currently, the investigation of misconduct allegations
is the domain of universities..." and "...the councils [NSERC
and others] refer all complaints to the university that employs the alleged
miscreant for investigation." Here you have a competent Canadian proof
that the fact that NSERC is involved in the case, does not guarantee the
correctness and "legitimacy" of the university investigation.
On the contrary, there are grave doubts that a Canadian university becomes
capable of conducting proper investigation by the involvement of NSERC.
These grave doubts, the dissatisfaction with the flawed Canadian system
of investigation of misconduct in science, and the failure of two university
investigations, over many years, to stop the fraud in food science that
became a concern around the world, prompted "An Examination of Research
Integrity Issues..." of 2007 (www.mun.ca/marcomm/public_affairs/issues/pencharz_report_2007.pdf),
that made recommendations to bring the investigations to the accepted international
standards. The changes, however, are still resisted.
Therefore, your assumption about the "legitimacy"
was wrong, and it became outrageously wrong when it resulted in your refusal
to present your own findings relying on the evidence in the case.
6. You report that you thoroughly reviewed the "history
of this issue" (i. e. my complaints to the local investigators and
their answers). You know, therefore, that two University of Toronto investigations
(documents #24 and #27) admitted the fact that E. Larsen repeated my original
experiments and published my original experiments and results as her own,
and you know that they did not consider this publication a plagiarism.
These investigators committed several other similar frauds and falsifications
of the academic law. You had no right to disregard all these obvious frauds
in the investigations and make the decision that "the journal has
no grounds to retract the article".
7. You did not challenge Canadian authorities and you did
not challenge their fraud. As a result, your report does not have any analysis
of the "history of this issue". Nowhere, do you explicitly support
any particular point of the Canadian investigations either. Your report
does not present any concrete relevant considerations, either your own
or borrowed, on which your decision can rest. You do not present a single
reference to any documentary evidence that can support your decision. You
had seven months to conduct your investigation, but your report is totally
devoid of any reliance on facts, and, you wrote an untenable decision that
is totally unsupported by evidence. I am certain that you could not find
a single piece of evidence supporting your decision.
8. While you are telling me that my request for retraction
has been "thoroughly reviewed", with the implication that my
request was found invalid, you do not report any conclusions of your review
and I have no opportunity to answer any. Adding this to your refusal to
challenge the supposed legitimacy of Canadian investigations, I believe
that your impartiality and your numerous assurances of your "scrupulous
fairness" are seriously undermined.
9. You have noted (and it stands as a material part of your
decision), "the absence of any new substantive information in the
nearly two decades since publication in TAMS". This is not correct.
The document #25 presents the new substantive information - Larsen's admissions
that she used my ideas and data. There are new admissions of the facts
that any honest investigator would call the facts of plagiarism (in documents
#24 and #27; I spoke of them in paragraph 6). There is also a new and extremely
important admission made jointly by E. Larsen and the University of Toronto
(document #36), that "the theoretical foundation" of my research
was published by me in 1980, i. e. before I came to this university. All
the above information came after the publication in TAMS.
10. The 1989 paper of Larsen and Zorn was accepted for publication
by the same journal that had, at the same time, the manuscript of 1987
with the same title and claiming the same discoveries, but with different
authors. It was absolutely wrong to publish this paper in the first place.
In this case, the retraction should only require some simple honesty to
admit the journal's mistake or whatever it was. Your journal was notified
on April 27, 2008, and it cannot continue to support this plagiarised,
fraudulent publication. The information (the 1987 manuscript and the accompanying
documents) that your journal was aware of at the time of publication, and
that was put before you again, is absolutely sufficient grounds for retracting
the 1989 article immediately. This publication, falsifying my authorship
of the discoveries and very seriously damaging my credentials, with extremely
serious consequences for my life, amounts to defamation, to say the least.
I request an immediate retraction of this paper and the publication of
all reasons for the retraction, explicitly restoring my rights as an author.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
************
Correspondence with Wiley-Blackwell
************
Concern about the retraction procedure Thursday, October
16, 2008 11:00 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: odean@bos.blackwellpublishing.com October 16, 2008
Dear Mr. Dean,
I would like to express my concern about the delay in the
article retraction procedure that I initiated with the Editor-in-Chief
of the journal Invertebrate Biology (formerly - Transactions of the American
Microscopical Society), Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds.
The article in question is this: "Cell Patterns Associated
with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs
of Drosophila" by Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn, published in Trans.
Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989.
This article contains plagiarised version of my research,
ideas and discoveries. Below, are the essential facts.
1. In 1987, my former PhD supervisor, Ellen Larsen (who,
in 1986, terminated my PhD research of five years) sent to the Transactions
of The American Microscopical Society, without my knowledge, the manuscript
that had the following title, authors and abstract:
Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs
Michael Pyshnov and Ellen Larsen
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1A1, Cananda
Abstract. Outlines of cell borders on the basal side of cells
in the imaginal discs of Drosophila larvae were studied after impregnation
with silver. Disc-specific cell arrays were found in each type of disc
studied. To determine if these patterns have morphogenetic significance,
we compared normal antennal disc patterns with those of the Nasobemia mutant
in which antennae are transformed into leg-like structures. The cell arrangement
of mutant antenna discs resembles the one specific for leg discs but not
antenna discs. We suggest that these cell arrays are under genetic influence,
and are generated by specific patterns of cell division. Thus, they possess
the characteristics of long sought after "pre-patterns" for morphogenesis.
2. The MS was accepted for publication and, then, Ellen Larsen
asked for my signature. I refused to sign it and complained to the Department
of her attempt to obtain co-authorship of the research that was entirely
my own research. In response, Ellen Larsen withdrew the MS from publication.
3. This same journal, however, published, in 1989, the paper
with these title, authors and abstract:
Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis
in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila
Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1A1, Canada
Abstract. Cell borders on the basal side of imaginal discs
of Drosophila melanogaster were delineated after impregnation with silver.
Leg discs differ from antennal discs in the kind of cell arrangement found.
The arrangements in the antennal disc of the Nasobemia mutant (in which
antennae are converted to leg-like structures) resemble those of leg discs
rather than antenna discs. This finding suggests that the disc-specific
cell arrays have morphogenetic significance, and may in fact create a "pre-pattern"
for the development of appendages.
4. I found this paper in 1993, and I obtained from the University
of Toronto the Affidavit of Documents that contained the following letter
written by Ellen Larsen to the Editor:
September 16, 1987
Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz, Editor Transactions of the American
Microscopical Society Department of Zoology University of Arkansas Fayettville,
Arkansas 72701 USA
Dear Dr. Schmitz,
I am writing with reference to MS 483-87. I regret that owing
to circumstances I shall outline below, I must withdraw this manuscript
from consideration. I intend, however, to submit the results of a similar
study (performed by myself and an undergraduate) in the very near future,
one which because of its somewhat wider scope may actually be a more satisfying
contribution.
The first author of MS 483-87, Mr. M. Pyshnov was a graduate
student under my supervision for some five years. In my opinion he is a
very creative scientist with great technical flair. Unfortunately, after
discovering disc specific cell arrangements and their modification in a
homeotic mutant he became unable to do more research. A year after he produced
his last preparations (those found in the MS) his graduate student status
was changed to "lapsed student", ie, one who is free to return
to complete requirements but who is no longer officially registered. I
was hoping that publication of his work would encourage him and enable
him to resume his progress towards a degree. Unfortunately he has changed
his mind and decided for reasons of his own that he does not want his work
published. I am not only disappointed with his decision but embarrassed
to have to retract the work after so many other people have given it their
expert time and effort.
In the new paper I shall try to incorporate both the reviewers'
and your excellent stylistic suggestions so that these efforts will not
have been entirely wasted.
Sincerely,
/signature/
Ellen Larsen
5. This is undoubtedly a prima facie case of plagiarism that,
in addition, includes clear admission made by Ellen Larsen in her letter
to the Editor, that the research and the two discoveries in the withdrawn
MS, were, in fact, my research and discoveries. Clearly, in the 1989 paper,
Larsen fraudulently claimed as her own the same discoveries that were reported
in the withdrawn MS; she plagiarised my unpublished PhD research. However,
the University of Toronto refused to find plagiarism and to restore my
authorship of the discoveries.
In the beginning of 2008, I found out that the Editor-in-Chief
of a scientific journal has a duty to retract papers containing plagiarised
research. On March 27, 2008, I sent my request to retract the above paper
to the current Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds. According to the
practically universally adopted procedure for retractions, and to the procedure
of Wiley-Blackwell, the Editor-in-Chief must send, at some point, the letter
with my complaint to the author of the paper. However, for over six months
now, Dr. Reynolds has not done so. Instead, Dr. Reynolds says that he wants
to talk to the other editors of the journal and that this will only be
possible at the annual meeting in January of 2009 (previously, on April
3, 2008, he said that he will talk to the editors "at our next conference
call").
On September 29, I called Dr. Reynolds. He said that he does
not know the procedure, although he mentioned that one of the editors,
indeed, advised him to contact the University of Toronto. Yet, Dr. Reynolds
is a member of the Council of Science Editors and he is the Chair of the
Scientific Misconduct Review Board at Hamilton College.
I fully understand that the Editor-in-Chief can consult with
other editors. However, the due process has already been postponed for
over 6 months and Dr. Reynolds wishes to postpone it by at least another
3 months. I am afraid that Dr. Reynolds is not committed at all to following
the procedure.
Moreover, delaying the procedure of retraction now seems
grossly unjustified if we consider the fact that this journal, in 1989,
had all the evidence of the falsified authorship of this paper, clearly
prohibiting its publication.
My question is this: What is the timeline for the procedure
of retraction, in particular, how much time should it take before the letter
with my complaint is sent to the author?
My PhD research was based on my original ideas and my previously
published papers. I made important discoveries that continued my research
in the area of cell proliferation. I need to return the authorship of the
discoveries under my name.
My request for retraction and the following correspondence
with Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds can be seen at: http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/journal.htm
The documents and the circumstances of the case are at: http://ca.oocities.com/uoftfraud/
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
(The same letter was sent to four other
addresses at Wiley-Blackwell, but I received no answers.)
************
RE: Concern about the retraction procedure Friday, October
17, 2008 10:48 AM From: "Dean, Otis - Boston" <odean@wiley.com>
To: "uoftfraud@yahoo.ca" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Dear Michael Pyshnov,
Thank you for your message. I wanted to let you know that
I have forwarded it to colleagues in the biological sciences who I expect
will get back to you (as I am the Social Sciences publisher and this does
not fall within my remit).
Sincerely, Otis Dean
************
RE: Concern about the retraction procedure Friday, October
17, 2008 12:44 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Dean, Otis - Boston" <odean@wiley.com>
Dear Mr. Dean,
I thank you very much for your message. I hope that the problem
will soon be resolved since my complaint of plagiarism in the article in
question is fully documented.
Thank you again.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Concern about the retraction procedure Monday, October
27, 2008 10:56 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
To: "Dean, Otis - Boston" <odean@wiley.com>
October 27, 2008
Dear Mr. Dean,
I am writing to you again, as I was not contacted by the
biological editors. My letter of October 16 with simple questions about
the timeline of the article retraction procedure remains unanswered. Can
you, please, let me know the name and email of the person in charge of
answering my letter?
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
Retraction Procedure Emails - Transactions of the AMS Tuesday,
October 28, 2008 10:40 AM From: "Lynch,
Jennifer - Boston" <jlynch@wiley.com> To: "uoftfraud@yahoo.ca"
<uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> Cc: "Dean, Otis - Boston" <odean@wiley.com>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
Otis Dean forwarded your emails to my attention. Please be
assured that Patrick Reynolds is taking your concern seriously and will
be responding to you directly.
All the best,
Jen
Jennifer Lynch
Editor, Science Journals
Wiley-Blackwell
350 Main Street
Malden, MA 02148
Tel: (781)388-8463
Fax: (781)338-8463
jlynch@wiley.com
************
Re: Retraction Procedure Emails - Transactions of the AMS
Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:41 PM From:
"Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Lynch,
Jennifer - Boston" <jlynch@wiley.com> October 29, 2008
Dear Ms. Lynch,
I thank you very much for your reassuring and kind message.
However, I contacted Wiley-Blackwell to receive an explanation
of the gross delay in the due process, and, most importantly, to receive
assurance that this delay will not result in further complications in the
due process.
In any case (and I mentioned it in my letter of October 16,
2008), there are solid grounds for retracting the article in question immediately.
This publication was, ab initio, (and, of course, remains now) wrong and
illegitimate. The 1987 MS with my name as the first author was processed
by the journal and accepted for publication. Therefore, publishing the
1989 article with the same title, ridiculously containing the correction
made by the Editor on the title of the 1987 MS, but under a different authorship
without my name, was wrong. The decision to publish it should not have
been made. Clearly, retracting this article immediately would be a completely
legitimate route to correct this wrong. I am not going now into blaming
the journal for publishing this article in 1989, but I only point out that
immediate retraction would be a right solution.
I still do not know what the procedure includes, how long
it should take and when Dr. Reynolds will contact me. I hope you understand
my frustration. I am asking you to let me know the main points of the current
procedure and its timeline, understandably, to the extent that I am entitled
to receive such information. Also, I would appreciate if you could tell
me when I should expect to hear back from Dr. Reynolds.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
************
RE: Retraction Procedure Emails - Transactions of the AMS
Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:05 AM From:
"Lynch, Jennifer - Boston" <jlynch@wiley.com> To: "uoftfraud@yahoo.ca"
<uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> Cc: "Patrick Reynolds" <preynold@hamilton.edu>
Dear Mr. Pyshnov,
Thank you for your note. I hope you understand that I cannot
speak for the AMS or Pat Reynolds. Wiley-Blackwell publishes Invertebrate
Biology on behalf of the AMS, and while we offer guidance on policy, we
do not set journal or society policy. I know that Dr. Reynolds has been
researching your request thoroughly and seeking advice so that his decision
is well informed and grounded in ethical precedent. I believe that this
is what has been causing the delay in the process. He is striving to respond
to you presently, and I have copied him here so he is aware of this correspondence.
With regards to your specific questions about the process, I have outlined
our company policy on retractions below.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (“Wiley” or “Wiley-Blackwell”)
appreciates its responsibility towards maintaining the integrity and completeness
of the scholarly record for researchers and librarians. The Company attaches
the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic
archive and of the journals that reside there. This policy has been designed
to address these concerns and is based on current best practice in the
scholarly and library communities.
It is company policy strongly to discourage withdrawal of
an article in line with standard industry practice (see 2006-03: STM guidelines
on Preserving the Record of Science, http://www.stm-assoc.org).
If there are irregularities with the content of the article
then it is at the Journal’s discretion to print an appropriate statement
in the journal. This can only take place after full investigation of the
incident has taken place and the nature of the irregularity established
beyond all reasonable doubt.
The lead author of the affected article would be notified
and asked for a prompt response to any allegations and give all affected
authors the opportunity to see any errata or notices prior to publication.
I hope this helps to clarify the process.
All the best,
Jennifer Lynch
************
RE: Retraction Procedure Emails - Transactions of the AMS
Friday, October 31, 2008 8:29 AM From: "Michael
Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Lynch, Jennifer - Boston"
<jlynch@wiley.com>
October 31, 2008
Dear Ms. Lynch,
Unfortunately, your letter of October 30, 2008 did not directly
answer my concern about the delay in the article retraction procedure that
was the subject of my letter of October 16, 2008 and, again, of October
29, 2008.
You have not answered my repeated question about the timeline
for the article retraction procedure. You do not deny that I am entitled
to receive this information, but you do not offer an explanation as to
why you did not answer this question.
You said that you only believe that the delay in the process
has occurred because "Dr. Reynolds has been researching your request
thoroughly and seeking advice so that his decision is well informed and
grounded in ethical precedent."
I submit to you that while the above is certainly reassuring,
the first steps in the procedure adopted by Wiley-Blackwell (the COPE Flowchart
4: "What to do if you suspect plagiarism, (b) Suspected plagiarism
in a published article"), i. e. what should be done before the Editor's
letter is sent to the lead author of the affected article and the author
is asked for a prompt response to my allegations, took too long - seven
months.
I thank you for informing me that Dr. Reynolds is striving
to respond to me presently. And, therefore, I would like to believe that
the causes for delaying the due process are now behind us. If this proves
to be too naive, I will proceed to further and wider consultations with
scientific community.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
************
Out of Office: Retraction Procedure Emails - Transactions
of the AMS Friday, October 31, 2008 8:32 AM
From: "Lynch, Jennifer - Boston" <jlynch@wiley.com> To:
"Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Thank you for your message. I will be out of the office on
Friday, October 31, returning Monday, November 3. I will respond to you
immediately upon my return.
All the best,
Jennifer Lynch
************