Jeffrey Beall wrote in this blog post: “COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is experiencing problems that are affecting its credibility. Some believe that it has succumbed to cronyism (…)”.
.
Jeffrey Beall wrote also in this blog post: “The COPE board’s chair, Virginia Barbour, has regrettably politicized COPE by writing strident essays favoring open-access and attacking Elsevier. She uses military metaphors (“The battle for open access is far from over”) to fan the flames.”
.
The current Complaints Administrator of COPE ( http://publicationethics.org/cope-staff ) is Iratxe Puebla.
.
Iratxe Puebla is a member of the staff of OA publisher PLOS and is currently acting as Managing Editor of the journal PLOS ONE. Iratxe Puebla promised me on 26 July 2015 to sent me in cc the correspondence of her with publisher Taylor & Francis about a faulty paper in a TF journal, see https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200
.
I have until now, 12 March 2015, not received a single piece of this correspondence. I am therefore already waiting 230 days on getting this correspondence. I have of course sent several reminders. A representative of COPE told me on 11 September 2015 that COPE would no longer open e-mails from my side. I have urged this representative a few times to forward to me the correspondence of Iratxe Puebla with publisher Taylor & Francis. This was unsuccessful. I have therefore contacted other parties, for example also publisher PLOS. I have sent various reminders to PLOS, until now without getting the correspondence. Iratxe Puebla does not respond.
.
Dr. Kamoun and Dr. Zipfel have recently published a letter in Nature in which they state that an obvious refusal to correct errors / mistakes must also be regarded as scientific misconduct ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7593/full/531173e.html ).
.
I hold the opinion that the above listed behaviour of Iratxe Puebla falls within the definition of scientific misconduct as defined by Dr. Kamoun and Dr. Zipfel, see also http://www.tsl.ac.uk/about-tsl/scientific-integrity/
.
I have therefore decided to file a formal complaint at publisher PLOS against Iratxe Puebla. This complaint was filed on 28 February 2016. My decision to file such a complaint was not an easy one and the decision was taken after several reminders to OA publisher PLOS remained unanswered (I only receive auto-replies with new case numbers). See below for the contents of this complaint. I have until now only received two auto-replies from PLOS.
.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.
.
.
“From: Klaas van Dijk; To: plosone; Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:26 PM; Subject: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla
Dear PLOS et al,
I would like to report that Iratxe Puebla, the Managing Editor of PLOS ONE, is currently deeply involved in covering up a clear case of scientific misconduct.
Numerous efforts, and already for a prolonged period of time, to convince Iratxe Puebla to stop with the above mentioned behaviour were unsuccessful. I have therefore concluded that it is intentional behaviour of Iratxe Puebla to continue with her efforts to cover up a clear case of scientific misconduct.
I am therefore lodging a formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct committed by Iratxe Puebla.
The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf states: “It also includes the wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.”
That’s what is going on over here.
The VSNU Code of Conduct ( http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/code-wetenschapsbeoefening-14-en.pdf and http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/wetenschappelijke-integriteit-12-en.pdf ) states:
“Regarding the behaviour types listed below, the universities hereby declare that they categorically reject them, are actively fighting them, and if necessary will punish offenders with all the sanctions at their disposal. Violations of academic integrity include the following: (…). Permitting and concealing the misconduct of colleagues.”
I suggest to punish Iratxe Puebla with a severe sanction.
Backgrounds are listed in:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7DA806A8062EF9474F1A53717B9D1D#fb36200
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1C6B56C6600F850C0320D4161278E8#fb43193
https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/join-the-committee-ignore-publication-ethics/
https://forbetterscience.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/frontiers-christmas-carol/
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/12/one-problem-with-the-scholarly-publishing-industry/
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/14/another-controversial-paper-from-fronters
https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/2E91E8916236A6EE03F372E64FBBAF
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/16/seralini-feed-contamination-study-plos-fire-not-following-guidelines-data-access/
Thanks in advance for sending me a response in which is stated that my formal complaint against Iratxe Puebla was received by PLOS in good order.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me when there are errors and/or mistakes in texts from my side.
Best wishes,
Klaas van Dijk / Groningen / The Netherlands / https://scholar.google.es/citations?user=hmhMcScAAAAJ&hl=en
DISCLAIMER: I am hereby declaring that that this e-mail is prepared in good faith, that this is also the case for all other e-mails from my side to PLOS and to all other parties about the ongoing issues about a faulty paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler. I am hereby declaring that all of these e-mails from my side are 100% honest e-mails. Anyone who is claiming that I am dishonest, and/or that my behaviour is partial, and/or vexatious and/or that my statements about the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warber are untrue / false (etc.), will first need to provide me access to the full list of requested raw research data (see https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7#fb31538 for the full list), and will need to accept that Richard Porter and his co-workers can scrutinize this entire set of raw research data. (I, Richard Porter and all co-authors of a rebuttal of Richard Porter state the paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler is loaded with fabricated data).”
——————————–
“From: PLOS ONE; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 12:21 PM; Subject: Auto-Reply: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla
Dear Klaas van Dijk
Thank you for contacting PLOS ONE. We will respond to your email as soon as we are able.
In the meantime, you may find the answer to your query here:
PLOS ONE Video Shorts http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/plos-one-video-shorts/
Frequently Asked Questions http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/authors/qa/
Reviewer Guidelines http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines.action
Kindest regards,
PLOS ONE Case 04430062 PL#0N3_AR ref:_00DU0Ifis._500U0RIuz6:ref”
———————————————–
“From: “PLOS ONE”; To: Klaas van Dijk; Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 11:11 AM; Subject: Auto-Reply: Fw: A formal complaint to PLOS with serious allegations of scientific misconduct commmited by PLOS employee Iratxe Puebla
Dear Klaas van Dijk
Thank you for contacting PLOS ONE. We will respond to your email as soon as we are able.
In the meantime, you may find the answer to your query here:
PLOS ONE Video Shorts http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/plos-one-video-shorts/
Frequently Asked Questions http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/authors/qa/
Reviewer Guidelines http://www.plosone.org/static/reviewerGuidelines.action
Kindest regards,
PLOS ONE Case 04442239 PL#0N3_AR ref:_00DU0Ifis._500U0RkFzm:ref”
