Category: PIE

RIP OAPL: An Academic Publisher Vanishes (UPDATED)

By Neuroskeptic | October 15, 2018 2:08 pm

A dubious predatory academic publisher called Open Access Publishing London (OAPL) seems to have died. Their website has gone down, taking some 1,500 scientific papers with it. What can we learn from this? (UPDATED: The site is now back online, and no longer gives a ‘domain expired’ notice. It was down for about two weeks by my count.)


Long-time readers will remember my series of posts on OAPL back from when I first investigated it in 2013. As far as I can tell, it was a one-man operation. The man turned out to be a Dr. Waseem Jerjes. Jerjes is a dental surgeon with many legitimate research papers to his name, and he was formerly editor of a journal for well-known publishers BioMed Central (BMC).

OAPL published dozens of journals on their now-defunct website, from OA Anaesthetics to OA Women’s Health. These journals claimed to be peer-reviewed and some boasted well-known researchers on their editorial boards.

Eventually, the OAPL story went cold. By early 2015, the OAPL site was no longer being updated. Some researchers who’d had papers accepted by OAPL journals in the final few months were left in the lurch by this, their manuscripts lost in limbo. At that point, however, papers that had been published were still accessible.

Now, the OAPL website hosts nothing more than a ‘domain name expired’ message and a series of links to things like “Bass Fishing Trips Near Me”. All those papers – over 1,500 if I recall correctly – have just been un-published. Vanished. The journals that published these papers no longer exist.

Fortunately, many of the lost papers are still available elsewhere online, e.g. on the author’s own webpage, or on mirroring services such as However, some papers seem to have fallen through the cracks and, with no mirrors, they really have vanished. For example, a Google Scholar citation is all that remains of this one:


It would be wrong to think that none of this matters because OAPL were never a serious publisher. Although OAPL did publish some dreadful papers, most of their output seemed to be serious work from legitimate researchers. These innocent researchers are the victims here. They paid money for OAPL to publish their work, and now it’s gone.

This case also raises interesting questions about the nature of academic publication. Can the former OAPL papers still be considered “published work”, if they are nowhere to found in any publication? Will anyone really miss the lost papers – or have they already become ‘too old’ to bother reading in today’s fast-paced science world? Does anyone read papers, anyway?

As for OAPL, I’m sure they’re not the first publisher to vanish and they surely won’t be the last, but it doesn’t seem right to allow papers, trusted into your care by the authors, to just disappear. Then again, what do I know? I’m no expert on ethics – unlike, say, Waseem Jerjes, who recently edited a book about “Research Integrity and Publication Ethics.”

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, law, PIE, select, Top Posts

Rogue Editors at a Psychiatry Journal?

By Neuroskeptic | March 29, 2016 9:12 am


A group of Indian psychiatrists have raised concern over suspicious similarities between three papers published in the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM). Their allegations have just been published, also in the same journal.
Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: papers, PIE, science, select, Top Posts

Plagiarism Is Theft – But Of What?

By Neuroskeptic | January 26, 2016 3:58 pm

It’s widely accepted that plagiarism is a bad thing. But why is this? What makes it wrong?


Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, PIE, science, select, Top Posts

What Happens When An Academic Publisher Stops Publishing?

By Neuroskeptic | March 11, 2015 1:44 pm

What happens when an academic publisher stops publishing? What can scientists do when they get a manuscript accepted, only to find that the journal has become inactive?

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: blogging, papers, PIE, select, Top Posts

Editorial Misbehaviour in Autism Journals?

By Neuroskeptic | February 16, 2015 6:11 pm

A remarkable scandal has erupted concerning the editorial standards of two scientific journals.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: autism, papers, PIE, science, select, Top Posts

The Strange Rise and Fall of a Medical Journal

By Neuroskeptic | August 25, 2014 10:19 am

For almost a year, I’ve been blogging about two strange organizations from the world of science, Publication Integrity and Ethics (PIE) and Open Access Publishing London (OAPL).

This story went quiet for a while, but now it’s back, with the publication of an extraordinary document called: Evidence-based analysis: The rise and fall of Head and Neck Oncology I : the audit and subsequent investigations. This paper is, to my knowledge, unique in the medical literature. In it, the editor of a medical journal devotes a whole 15 pages to defending his own behavior as editor, and refuting charges of misconduct against him.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: funny, law, papers, PIE, science, select, Top Posts

How To Fool A Plagiarism Detector

By Neuroskeptic | April 17, 2014 4:25 am

Should you trust plagiarism detection software?

In my view, no – we should never treat an automated plagiarism report as definitive evidence, whether positive (as proof of plagiarism) or negative (as proof of innocence.) These tools are useful for rapidly screening texts to raise red flags, but once a suspicion is raised, only old-fashioned manual checking can determine originality or otherwise.

In this post I’ll explain why – but first, a little backstory.

Five months ago, I argued that certain materials published by a new British ‘research ethics organization’, called PIE, contained similarities to other, uncited sources. For more on PIE, see these posts.

Shortly after I posted, PIE put up a Disclaimer. In the past week they’ve gone on the defensive again with a blog post which, while not naming me, is clearly aimed in my direction. (The comment thread is quite entertaining.)

This is where those plagiarism detectors come in. In their “Disclaimer”, echoed in the blog post, PIE report that all of their text is rated as original by two automated plagiarism checkers: Grammarly and IThenticate.

I have no doubt that that’s true, but it doesn’t impress me much. Most of these detectors rely on spotting strings of text that are identical between two sources. So they can pick up naked copy and pasting, but they can be fooled quite easily.

All a hypothetical plagiarist needs to do, to evade such software, is to make sure that no more than, say, any given three or four consecutive words are identical to their source. So they can copy and paste, so long as they, let’s say, change the word order a bit, add or remove some filler words like ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘but’, and replace a few words with synonyms. I call this text laundering.

To show how easily text could hypothetically be laundered, I took some of PIE’s own text (from here)

PIE Original: You are invited to join the Publication Integrity and Ethics (herein referred to as PIE) as one of its founding members. PIE, a not-for profit organisation, offers free membership to all interested individuals. Please join us and become part of this exciting new movement in the world of publishing ethics; it is the professional home for authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors-in-chief.

Now let’s copy, paste, wash and rinse…

Neuroskeptic: You are invited to join Publication Integrity and Ethics (herein referred to as PIE) and become one of its founding members. PIE, a not-for profit organisation, offers interested individuals free membership. Please join this exciting new movement in the publishing ethics world; PIE is the professional home for reviewers, editorial board members, authors, and editors-in-chief.

If that’s not plagiarism, I don’t know what is. But Grammarly’s verdict? “The text in this document is original.”


Importantly, Grammarly does ring the plagiarism alarm if you enter PIE’s original text. This proves that PIE’s website is part of Grammarly’s database of sources. So the software should have detected my ‘plagiarism’. But it didn’t. This is why I always take these tools with a pinch of salt, and why I’m not impressed by PIE’s Disclaimer (although please note – I have never accused PIE of ‘plagiarism’. They introduced that word into this discussion, not I. I just talk about similarities.)

There are other lessons to learn from this saga. Consider, for instance, that a few days ago, PIE released an new bit of their disclaimer, “Examined Documents“. They now say that

Our authors have examined several documents at the time of writing the contents of the Publication Integrity & Ethics [PIE] website and its guidelines. Hence, it is natural that we include the list of these documents as our references. Please see the list.

It is indeed ‘natural’ for authors to reference their sources, but it seems that for the first few months of the site’s existence, they didn’t do so. Which I guess made them… unnatural?

Anyway, the list vindicates what I said in my very first PIE post: I said that some of PIE’s content was similar to the Australian Press Council’s newspaper guidelines, and publisher Elsevier’s editorial policies – and they now reference both of those sources. If they’d only done that from the start, I wouldn’t have written my post.

The lesson here? Acknowledge your sources from the start. Because the longer you leave it, the worse your eventual climbdown will look.

But something is conspicuous by its absence from PIE’s reference list: any mention of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Yet as I said previously, several areas of PIE’s work appear similar to COPE’s .

Consider the PIE Peer Reviewer Guidelines. The last bit of PIE’s document (parts 7.1-8.5) consists of 16 points. In my estimation, the same ideas all appear in a section of COPE’s Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The wording differs somewhat (though in many cases, only slightly), but the content is essentially the same.

Crucially, the 16 ideas appear in exactly the same order in both documents – despite the fact that the COPE document also contains additional statements with no PIE equivalent, interspersed among the ones that are similar. If we designate the PIE statements in order as A-P, we find that the COPE equivalents also appear in the order A-P.


How odd. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence. How much of a coincidence? Well, to calculate the number of possible ways to order a given number of items (permutations), we need the mathematical factorial function, written as X! There are X! ways to order X items. 16! = 2.09*10^13 so there are about 20 trillion unique orderings of those 16 items.

So it’s quite a big coincidence, then. Why might PIE not want to credit COPE? We can but speculate. Perhaps the fact that PIE seems to be in direct competition to COPE might be relevant: they’re both organizations with “Publication” and “Ethics” in the title, who offer a set of best-practice guidelines for academics and academic publishers. Although COPE has been around for 17 years not 5 months.

It might be embarrassing to admit a debt to ones rivals… but it’s more embarrassing not to admit it. So this is the final lesson here: there’s nothing wrong with being influenced by your predecessors: no-one will care, if you’re transparent about it.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, funny, PIE, select, Top Posts, Uncategorized

Duplicate Publication, Integrity and Ethics (PIE Part 4)

By Neuroskeptic | February 18, 2014 3:05 pm

A couple of months ago, I became aware of an organization called Publication Integrity and Ethics (PIE). In three posts (1,2,3) I explored some interesting facts about this group, and about a related organization, Open Access Publishing London (OAPL).

PIE say that their mission is to “promote and maintain a better and a healthier publishing environment through a new set of ethical rules and guidelines”. OAPL, who manage some 50 academic journals, say that they were “the first global publishing house to adopt the PIE Guidelines.” …They are also the only global publishing house whose Director is a relative of PIE’s Director.

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: blogging, funny, papers, PIE, select, Top Posts

Patterns of (Apparent) Plagiarism

By Neuroskeptic | January 15, 2014 5:10 pm

Lately I’ve been investigating (apparent) plagiarism in various areas of scientific publication. It’s quite interesting how many different ways there are to put together an unoriginal paper. No two cases are alike, but I have noticed some patterns.

Read More

A Tangled Ethical Web: “PIE”, Part 3

By Neuroskeptic | December 2, 2013 1:50 pm

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I looked into the new organization Publication Integrity and Ethics (PIE), who offer guidelines on best practice and misconduct for academics and journal editors.

Since then, some 30 journals have signed up to PIE – but do they know what they’re getting themselves in for?

Read More

CATEGORIZED UNDER: ethics, funny, PIE, select, Top Posts


No brain. No gain.

See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar