Is Plagiarism or Fraud Acceptable? YES. Critical Care, a SpringNature Journal, will waive and allow plagiarism and fraud if one maintains a strong relationship with the journal's chief editor ‘Jean-Louis Vinc’.

11 min readJan 19, 2023

Pierre Hausfater (Linkedin [Sorbonne University]) committed fraud and plagiarism, and the Critical Care chief editor Jean-Louis Vinc (Linkedin) and his ethical team led by Tim Kersjes (Linkedin), head of the journal’s ethics committee, helped to cover up the fraud.

In theory, every scientist and the scientific community recognizes plagiarism or fraud as unacceptable and punishable. However, in reality, some scientists and institutions practice and even encourage plagiarism and fraud. Almost all the time the victims are generally young researchers. Some ethics committees that are established apparently may seem working to ensure ethical guidelines are properly maintained but are not necessarily there to ensure ethics but rather support and help some established researchers to validate their fraud. I will expose a publication in which my work has been plagiarized, however, when I tried to solve the disputes and claimed my work, the authors’ Journal, and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) did very little to nothing.

Colonialism involved the exploitation and theft of resources from other nations, with some believing that it is a thing of the past. However, their progeny and shadow and effects of colonialism still exist in different forms today. This includes its influence in academia and research, as well.

The publication I am referring to is ‘Monocyte distribution width (MDW) performance as an early sepsis indicator in the emergency department: comparison with CRP and procalcitonin in a multicenter international European prospective study’ (Hausfater, P. et al.; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03622-5 1 comment on PubPeer (by: M. S. Hasan, Devosia Epidermidihirudinis) 1 comment on PubPeer (by: M. S. Hasan, Devosia Epidermidihirudinis) 1 comment on PubPeer (by: M. S. Hasan, Devosia Epidermidihirudinis) 1 comment on PubPeer (by: M. S. Hasan, Devosia Epidermidihirudinis) ).

This article serves as a noteworthy example of how certain scientific communities engage in, accept, and actively support unethical practices such as plagiarism and fraud. Despite the clear presence of extensive plagiarism in the article, both the authors and the journal editor were aware of this issue but chose to overlook it. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) even suggested that the article be returned to the authors’ institution for resolution, stating that it is crucial to adhere to COPE’s guidelines. However, as of today the journal has not taken any actions based on this recommendation in addressing the plagiarism and fraud.

Before, going into the details, I want to introduce that there are five parties involved in this dispute. 1) Mohamad Hasan (Myself), 2) Liliana Tejidor (Author), 3) Pierre Hausfater (the corresponding author of the disputed article), 4) Critical Care journal (SpringNature entity), Publishing Editor Barbara Pedrotti, and Research Integrity Adviser Maja Choma, and 5) COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

I was an employee at Beckman Coulter, Inc (a diagnostic-pharma company) from February 2019 to September 2020. During my tenure, I have been involved with many projects, including the clinical trial this manuscript is based on, called European Confirmatory Trial. This publication is one of many projects and publications under the same umbrella of SEPSIS. I had been always a significant contributor and statistician to SEPSIS projects.

I was the only statistician engaged in this particular study from the beginning of the patients’ enrollment to the end of the study. I spent at least 600 hours as a statistician to support and successfully complete the study. This includes a comprehensive interim (early look) data analysis and final data analysis in addition to the interpretation of the statistical results and clarification and guidance during manuscript drafting. All tables and figures in this paper and the corresponding supplementary documents are my direct contribution. None of the authors of the manuscript has expertise or be able to produce/reproduce the work.

When I left the company in September 2020, a solid draft was completed. In fact, the first draft was completed by end of the July 2020. I was again the only statistician who participated in the early discussions and meetings and provided my input and interpretation to solidify the manuscript draft. There were generally four people who participated in those meetings: Pierre Hausfater, Neus Robert Boter, Liliana Tejidor, and myself. Indeed, these are the four scientific contributors to this publication. The inclusion of the rest of the authors might not even satisfy the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines.

Unfortunately, when the paper was published on June 30, 2021, I discovered myself nowhere as an author. The other authors, especially Pierre Hausfater and Liliana Tejidor (Project Lead, Beckman employee), never communicated with me in this regard. I did not receive a single email or phone call regarding this publication after leaving the company. They never asked me whether they could remove my name from the authorship or put in the acknowledgment section. They used all of my work to publish this paper, but they completely removed my name without my consent, although this paper could not have even been started in the first place without using my work. Removing my name could be retaliation because I left the company.

Besides, they also went out of their way to lie! It is stated in the manuscript that SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) statistical program was used for Data analyses and they also mentioned in the contribution section that the Data analysis was completed by PH, LT, LV, MC, CM, and NRB, which is a blatant lie! None of the authors has expertise in statistics or SAS (a specialized statistical software). It is I who only know the SAS and conducted the data analysis.

As soon as I discovered my name had been omitted from the publication, I communicated via email to the corresponding author Pierre Hausfater. Pierre Hausfater replied to me as “…Beckman Coulter has been decided internally, with the consideration that we had to limit the number compared to co-authorship from the 2 participating countries. All other contributors have been placed in the acknowledgment section…”. How ridiculous the reasoning is! Also, this is a serious violation of ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and scientific ethics. By the ICMJE authorship decisions should be based on scientific contribution not the number of authors.

At the same time, Liliana Tejidor contacted me as ‘…I received a copy of the email you sent Dr. Hausfater and wanted to let you know that it was not his final decision but rather mine. He had let me know that we were restricted to 2–3 Beckman authors maximum only…’. Again Pierre Hausfater or none has the right to remove any authors after the research work has been completed and authorship should be based on science, not someone’s favoritism.

I requested them to take the necessary steps to make the correction, but the authors did nothing.

I then communicated with the journal editor Barbara Pedrotti and explained the background and the situation. I also pointed out that the manuscript contains false claims that SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) statistical program was used for data analyses and Data analysis was completed by PH, LT, LV, MC, CM, and NRB in the authors’ contribution section. These claims are contradictory because none of the authors has expertise in statistics or SAS. The obvious proof is that there is not a single figure or table in this paper that was used or is the outcome of their data analysis. All are my work. If they were the analyst, then where are their work in the paper?

After back-and-forth communication with editors, the authors finally agreed to include me in the paper; however, they disagreed to give me credit for my contribution and wanted to keep the false statement ‘Data analysis was completed by PH, LT, LV, MC, CM, and NRB’.

I initially thought the journal is genuinely trying to solve the dispute. However, as time passed, it became clear to me that the editors and the journal’s ethics committee were negotiating behind the door and helping the authors to cover up these unethical acts. They also came up with several attempts to validate this unethical act.

1) They invented a twisted truth as ‘I did statistical data analysis and they did data analysis, hence everyone is under data analysis’. Unfortunately, they failed to recognize if anyone thinks data analysis and statistical data analysis are two separate things for this publication then why not propose two terms in the contribution section instead of one term? This statement is also contradictory to what they mentioned in the manuscript. I further asked them to show their work in the manuscript but never received any replies. They just ignored my request as if they can whatever they want.

2) The journal came up with a lying statement “After the publication of this work it was noticed that author Mohamad Hasan was not included in the author list”. As I quoted earlier from the email communication my name was removed because according to them there were so many authors!

Later I found that the editor’s decisions are heavily influenced by the pre-existing relationship between the editor and the corresponding author Pierre Hausfater. In fact, Pierre Hausfater has a very strong personal relationship with many of the people of the journal and thus journal did every favorable possible action to save the author. To understand more one can refer to the link where the journal editor and Pierre Hausfater are giving a talk. Unfortunately, the author’s talk is based on my work. https://www.beckmancoulter.com/en/learning-and-events/webinars/hematology-webinars/power-of-early-recognition-of-severe-infection-and-sepsis

As I mentioned earlier all of the above discussions and decisions occurred behind the door without giving me any opportunity to agree or disagree. The editors and the authors came up with these decisions and prepared a form and asked me just to sign if I want to be an author otherwise they will keep the manuscript as it is. Can anyone imagine how tyrannical is this? Throughout the investigation process, the authors’ and the editor’s attitude was as if they are doing me a favor by making me an author.

According to the COPE (https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-c-addition-after-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf), the editors should not enter into dispute; instead, authorship disputes should be resolved through mutual discussions and agreements among authors, not the discussion between some authors and editors. However, the editor entered into the dispute and guided the authors on how to cover up these unethical acts.

Finally, after several failed attempts and frustration, I told them I don’t want to be an author. For ethical reasons I also asked them to remove my name from the acknowledgment as I have not reviewed the final content of the manuscripts. The Journal Editor even denied to remove my name from the acknowledgment section, although I never consented to keep my name anywhere in the article, none was even communicated in this regard. Every good journal requires permission from a person before using anyone’s name, even if the purpose is for acknowledgment only. But the editor ignored that important part too! The editor kept stressing that I was listed in the acknowledgment section for my work again and again. In other words, the editor is saying plagiarism and fraud are not unethical as long as you acknowledge the contribution! Someone also does not need permission to be acknowledged either. I strongly believe the editor could not dare to remove my name because then the publication will be invalid as all the results are my work.

From the beginning, I never felt the Journal was genuinely helping me to resolve the issue instead of wasting time by lingering decisions. the Journal was proactively helping the authors to cover up this unethical behavior after knowing everything. For example, the editor never updated me on the decision when I filed the complaint. When I emailed to know the status after a few weeks, the editor replied the complaint was already closed.

Therefore, I contacted the COPE. COPE took 1 solid year for the investigation. After requesting so many times just for an update, COPE finally recommended the journal and the authors send the publication back to the institution to resolve the dispute. However, the journal and the authors ignored the recommendation and did nothing.

Although COPE made a recommendation, I expected a better outcome than only this recommendation from COPE. I did not feel that the COPE decision was unbiased. COPE did not take into account any of my evidence at all. When I complained to the COPE, I also attached a file, and later I provided our email communication between the authors and the journal and pointed out that the editors’ response was partially true. The editor intentionally hid information. However, COPE unfortunately ignored any of the evidence.

I emailed the COPE, according to its guidelines, if the editor should be neutral in this situation. Surprisingly, COPE could not find violations of its guidelines by the editor even though the editor acknowledged the violation in the response to COPE request. I was ignored and never received any response from the COPE. Unfortunately, it seems COPE feels it’s safer to be sided with a famous journal than do true justice. It could be COPE did nothing the whole year and was undecisive because a famous journal is involved but could not completely deny my claim as the proof of fraud is obvious.

Is my situation unique? The answer is no. Many young researchers are facing these kinds of problems every day and almost all of them decide to keep silent to avoid unanticipated scary futures in addition to facing unthinkable racism and discrimination. However, I decided to expose these people and I hope many researchers will come forward to expose this kind of corruption. It is very saddening and disgusting to see the people who are supposed to be role models for the scientific community, and for the betterment of humanity, working as seasoned politicians, interchanging and mixing truth and lie shamelessly and also holding some ethical position when they do not have minimum ethics. The so-called ethical committees’ backbone is so weak that they can not take any strong steps if there is a famous journal or established author involved. There is science and scientist everywhere but how many of them truly follow ethics, not so many, unfortunately!