Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

The journal of a national scientific society in Europe has retracted a pair of papers after a heart specialist in Belgium complained that his name had been included on the manuscripts with neither his knowledge nor permission. 

The articles appeared in the official journal of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts: Section of Medical Sciences this July.

Both were led by Sofija Popevska and included a single co-author: Frank Rademakers, a cardiologist at KU Leuven. One was titled “The Left Ventricular Pressure-Volume Area and Stroke Work in Porcine Model of Ascending Compared to Descending Thoracic Aorta Stenosis Creating a Chronic Early Vs. Late Left Ventricular Afterload Increase.” The other, “Prolonged Asynchronous Left Ventricular Isovolumic Relaxation Constant in Ascending Compared to Descending Thoracic Aortic Stenosis for Chronic Early Left Ventricular Afterload and Late Left Ventricular Afterload Increase.”

The problem, as Rademakers told us, was that he’d had nothing to do with the work. 

I flagged these articles, when a collaborator mentioned them to me, as I was never involved in the preparation of these papers and never consented in being a co-author.

Mrs Popevska did start a PhD in Leuven under the supervision of Prof. [Piet] Claus and myself but the collaboration was ended before the completion of the PhD work and she has no standing position at KU Leuven at this moment.

Rademakers said Popevksa left the institution under a cloud of suspicion. Popevska did not respond to a request for comment.

The two retraction notices read: 

The co-author Frank Rademakers has not contributed to the paper and has never authorized the paper to be published with his name as a co-author.

Rademakers said he was pleased with the journal’s swift response to his complaints: 

they reacted promptly and immediately agreed to retract.

We also found Rademakers’ name on another piece of work with Popevska, a presentation at this year’s annual meeting of the Belgian Society of Cardiology.  

Rademakers said he’d been unaware of the study before we showed it to him: 

I was not aware and did not work with her on this presentation at all.

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

At first I thought the student had included a completely unrelated but famous cardiologist as co-author. Turns he was a supervisor/collaborator. Highly unlikely that he had nothing to do with the work (where else would she have done it). Looks like this is the result of an advisor-student feud where the advisor is getting back at the student out of spite.

After reading the full post, looks like the poor former student got the short end of the stick. He was her supervisor, of course she will include and give credit. It doesn’t look like She didn’t plagiarize. This is abuse of power!

It’s surprising that the PhD student had been put in a position where she couldn’t decide.

I am not sure but he had been my co-advisor. I could have been included his name.

There is something missing in the whole event. The ex student can make it clear. But I suspect it is sheer misuse of power from either supervisor or co-advisor.

The first article contains no author contributions section but does have an acknowledgement of “Popevski Ivan MSc”.

The second article DOES contain such a section: “Author contribution I clarify that have created, written, and reviewed this original article, created the model, performed the invasive measurements and the analysis of the data of invasive hemodynamic measurements. The author reviewed and approved the article before the submission for publishing in the Journal. The tables of results are of private property to Popevska Sofija as intellectual property (right).”

It does seem Rademakers really had nothing to do with that second one.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website per the terms of our privacy policy: https://retractionwatch.com/privacy-policy/ *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.