Correspondence with the
Committee on Publication Ethics

I wish everyone who is worried by the growing fraud in scientific research and publications will understand the following correspondence. Such documents are rarely, if at all, made public. It is important to understand how scoundrels in the industry of "ethics and integrity" are perverting and falsifying academic law to cover up the fraud of the scoundrels in scientific laboratories and scientific journals. To make clear some points that may escape the attention of readers, I give my comments, following the emails, and, my general remarks at the end.

The Committee is an international organisation (http://www.publicationethics.org). It has issued a Code of Conduct for the editors of 5000 scientific journals and it investigates the complaints against the editors who violate the Code. The Committee also investigates drug testing, falsification of data, falsification of authorship, conflict of interest and other "unethical" behavior in scientific and academic institutions.

If you are suffering from the effects of drugs that were not tested properly, if you were subjected to a fraudulent cancer treatment, if your life was destroyed by a fraud in a university, hospital or a scientific journal, and if your complaints are going nowhere, it is possible that the corrupt Committee on Publication Ethics covered up the fraud and let the scoundrels off the hook.

The nature of my complaint is explained on the main page of my web site (http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/). This is about the most outrageous fraud ever perpetrated in a university. The Committee on Publication Ethics, however, categorically refused to hear my case. I have no doubt that the Committee was bribed.

Unexpectedly, the last letter that I received from the Committee has little to do with ethics or science; it is read as a different genre - a comedy. But, if it were written as a satire, it would be considered too grotesque. Alas, this is an academic correspondence. I put it on a separate page, as I received it - in pdf.

(Note: quotations of previous messages in emails are omitted.)

=====================1

To: <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org>

Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

February 02, 2009

Dear Administrator,

I requested the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Invertebrate Biology to retract an obviously plagiarised article. The Editor refused my request solely on the grounds that University of Toronto, the employer of the plagiarist, did not find plagiarism in its investigations.

The Editor, Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds, did not rely on any of his own findings of facts. He did not follow the procedure of COPE which is required by his publisher, and he did not even rely on any comparison of the articles in question. The Editor also completely ignored the documents showing that the University of Toronto investigations were a fraud.

I understand that the journals of the publisher (John Wiley & Sons Ltd. and Wiley-Blackwell) are now members of the COPE, as was announced in October 2008.

Following the refusal to retract the article, and not receiving any answer from the Editor to my next letter, I complained to the members of the Editorial Board, asking to institute a review of the Editor's decision. I also asked them to let me know about the journal's complaint procedure. I again received no answer and, therefore, I was unable to make any further complaint to the journal.

My case, all documents and my correspondence with Dr. Reynolds is on my web site "University of Toronto Fraud" at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/

It will be clear for you from the documents, that the Editor used a false procedure.

I am asking COPE to investigate the misconduct of the Editor and his fraud on the editorial procedure.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.

Comment:

This email, as well as emails #3 and #4 were sent through the form on the COPE web site.
=====================2

Fw: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

Monday, February 9, 2009 7:51 AM From: "Linda Gough, COPE Administrator" <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org> To: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca

Hi Harvey,

Do you want to follow this up?

Cheers

Linda Gough

Administrator
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7383 6602
Fax +44 (0) 844 443 1087

Registered charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: COPE, Hempsons House, 40 Villiers St, London WC2N 6NJ, United Kingdom

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://publicationethics.org/node/3/submission/136

Comment:

Linda Gough, the Administrator of COPE, is sending me the copy of her letter to "Harvey", obviously - Dr. Harvey Marcovitch who was, at the time, the Chair of COPE. According to the Code of Conduct procedure (see CODE OF CONDUCT on the COPE web site), the Administrator, after verifying that a complaint against an editor fits the eligibility requirements on all points, sends the case to the Chair. However, I later learned that Dr. Harvey Marcovitch left COPE within the following few days.
=====================3

To: <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org>

Re: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

March 16, 2009

Dear Administrator,

In your email of February 9, there is a link saying: "The results of this submission may be viewed at: http://publicationethics.org/node/3/submission/136"

I, however, could not access it; this is probably for the members of COPE. So, I hope you will notify me of any new developments in my submission by email.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
=====================4

To: <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org>

Re: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

March 30, 2009

Dear Administrator,

On March 16, 2009, I sent you the following email:

"In your email of February 9, there is a link saying: "The results of this submission may be viewed at: http://publicationethics.org/node/3/submission/136"

I, however, could not access it; this is probably for the members of COPE. So, I hope you will notify me of any new developments in my submission by email."

I did not receive any reply, although indeed I did not ask any question directly. Still, I wish to know at what stage of the procedure my submission is now.

The COPE Code of Conduct says: "The referrer is asked to provide evidence, all relevant supporting documents including correspondence relating to the hearing of the complaint by the journal, in confidence to the Chair of COPE." Was my initial reference to the evidence, the documents and the correspondence on my web site satisfactory?

Please, let me know what is the status of my submission.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================5

Fw: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 8:31 AM From: "Linda Gough, COPE Administrator" <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org> To: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca Cc: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

Dear Michael,

Many thanks for your email. We did indeed receive your complaint and I will find out if there is any progress on your case.

Kind regards
Linda Gough

Administrator
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7383 6602
Fax +44 (0) 844 443 1087

Registered charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: COPE, Hempsons House, 40 Villiers St, London WC2N 6NJ, United Kingdom

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://publicationethics.org/node/3/submission/338
=====================6

Re: Fw: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:59 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "COPE AdministratorLinda Gough" <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org>

Dear Linda,

Thank you very much. Will look forward to hear from you.

Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================7

Re: Fw: Retraction of obviously plagiarised article

Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:48 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "COPE AdministratorLinda Gough" <cope_administrator@publicationethics.org>

Dear Linda,

Have you found out at what stage of your procedure my complaint is now?

Yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================8

'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:30 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca

Dear Mr Pyshnov,

I have assumed responsibility for dealing with the above matter which you originally brought to the attention of COPE on 02 February 2009.

I was appointed as the new Operations Director for COPE on 02 February 2009.

I apologise for the time it has taken to contact you. In going through the various documents and e-mails I found that for reasons unknown, but probably related to problems I encountered in setting up my new COPE e-mail account at the time, I had not received a copy of your first e-mail to COPE.

Forgive me then for asking the following questions at this stage; but to ensure that I have the necessary relevant details I need some further clarification and information, please:

1. I need the full reference to your original article (which you claim has been plagiarised): the name of the publisher and the Editor-in-Chief; article title; named author(s), journal title, volume, issue date/number and page numbers.

2. I also need the full reference to the article which you claim plagiarises your original; the name of the publisher and the Editor-in-Chief; article title; named author(s), journal title, volume, issue date/number and page numbers.

3. Can you supply copies of correspondence between you and the Editor-in-Chief of journal (2) to confirm your request(s) to the E-in-C to retract the article to which you object and the responses (and reasons) given for not doing so?

3. I note that you say you have contacted the Editorial Board of the journal that published Article (2). Can you let me have sight of this correspondence, please?

4. Have you contacted the publisher of journal (2)?

Please be assured that all material sent to COPE will remain in strictest confidence.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK

Comment:

My case is not given to the new Chair, but to the Operations Director, Tim Feest. He needs some answers that are clearly spelled out on the first page of my web site given to COPE. In particular, he is asking for the reference to my "original article", where and when it was published, etc.
=====================9

Re: 'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:26 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

Re: RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE

April 24, 2009

Dear Mr. Feest,

I thank you for your message.

In case my original complaint to COPE of February 2, 2009 is still missing, I copy it here:

February 2, 2009.

Dear Administrator,

I requested the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Invertebrate Biology to retract an obviously plagiarised article. The Editor refused my request solely on the grounds that University of Toronto, the employer of the plagiarist, did not find plagiarism in its investigations.

The Editor, Dr. Patrick D. Reynolds, did not rely on any of his own findings of facts. He did not follow the procedure of COPE which is required by his publisher, and he did not even rely on any comparison of the articles in question. The Editor also completely ignored the documents showing that the University of Toronto investigations were a fraud.

I understand that the journals of the publisher (John Wiley & Sons Ltd. and Wiley-Blackwell) are now members of the COPE, as was announced in October 2008.

Following the refusal to retract the article, and not receiving any answer from the Editor to my next letter, I complained to the members of the Editorial Board, asking to institute a review of the Editor's decision. I also asked them to let me know about the journal's complaint procedure. I again received no answer and, therefore, I was unable to make any further complaint to the journal.

My case, all documents and my correspondence with Dr. Reynolds is on my web site "University of Toronto Fraud" at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/

It will be clear for you from the documents, that the Editor used a false procedure.

I am asking COPE to investigate the misconduct of the Editor and his fraud on the editorial procedure.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
------------------------

I now will answer your questions.

1. First, allow me, please, to introduce a very important correction into the formulation of your question where you say: "I need the full reference to your original article (which you claim has been plagiarised)..." I do not say that my original article has been plagiarised. What I say is that the article of Larsen and Zorn (1989) plagiarises my original and unpublished research, discoveries, experiments and ideas.

As a proof that the article of Larsen and Zorn (1989) is an illegitimate, plagiarised paper, I refer to the Manuscript #483-87, received April 14, 1987 by the Transactions of the American Microscopical Society (the name of the Invertebrate Biology at the time). This MS was written and submitted by E. Larsen herself, without my knowledge. E. Larsen had put my name as the first author and her name as the second author. The MS, strictly speaking, was not my article, but it described my research, etc. When the article of Larsen and Zorn (1989) is compared with the MS of 1987, it becomes clear that Larsen and Zorn represent my original and unpublished research, etc. as their own. On my web site, there is more documentary proof of my authorship of the research in the MS and also the proof, independent of the content of the MS, of the plagiarism of my research in the Larsen and Zorn article.

The MS of 1987 was accepted for publication (pending corrections of style), but withdrawn by E. Larsen, without argument, following my complaint to the Department.

The title of the MS: Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver Stained Drosophila Imaginal Discs
The authors: Michael Pyshnov and Ellen Larsen

The MS is scanned at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/doc11.htm

2. The article of Larsen and Zorn that plagiarises my research, etc. is published in Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989.
The title of the article: Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila
The authors: Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn

The article is scanned at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/doc21.htm

3. The copies of correspondence between me and the Editor-in-Chief are at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/journal.htm

4. I indeed contacted all members of the Editorial Board of the journal. I received replies only from Dr. V. B. Meyer-Rochow (Jacobs University, Germany). You may contact him at "VB Meyer-Rochow" <b.meyer-rochow@jacobs-university.de> or at vmr@cc.oulu.fi I do not know if I am authorised to copy this correspondence, and I just think that it would be more proper if you contact him yourself.

5. I contacted the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell. This correspondence is at http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/journal.htm (Please, see this correspondence in the last 9 emails at the end of this file.)

Please, note that I do not give you the names of publishers and editors of the journal in the years past (except that of the editor Dr. Eugene H. Schmitz). They can be found in the past issues of the journal; I am sorry to say that I have no access to the journals as I am prohibited to visit the university.

Please, do not hesitate to ask me any questions related to the matter. I do have the answers, and they are in the documents. I do not wish anything to remain unclear to you, or anything be judged without a documentary evidence.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================10

Re: 'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:43 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>

Dear Mr Pyshnov,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding with regard to the nature of your grievance: I am grateful for the clarification.

Thank you for sending responses to the other questions I raised.

COPE will now consider the matter in full and will respond in due course, hopefully no later than Monday 5 May 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK
=====================11

'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:05 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Message contains attachments COPE LETTER TO PYSHNOV 28ARP09.pdf (22KB)

Dear Mr Pyshnov,

I have discussed your case at length with my colleagues at COPE and have attached our formal response herewith.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK


ATTACHMENT:

COPE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS

Tim Feest, Operations Director

Shieling House 30, Invincible Road Farnborough Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK
Tel: 44 (0) 1252 371022 E-mail: cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org

IN CONFIDENCE

Mr Michael Pyshnov
E-mail address: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca


Dear Mr Pyshnov,

Re: ‘Retraction of obviously plagiarised article’

I have discussed your case with my colleagues at COPE.

Our conclusion is that we consider this to be an authorship dispute rather than a case of plagiarism (which is generally understood to be the unauthorised use of already-published words, data or illustrations, etc.)

The main reason for our view that this is not plagiarism is your claim that the 1989 article, authored by Larsen and Zorn, plagiarises your “…original and unpublished (our emphasis) research…” (to use your words).

COPE’s stance in such instances, including this one, is quite clear: we cannot become involved with the resolution of authorship disputes. Such matters must, we believe, rest with the institution(s) and/or employer(s) concerned. We also recommend that journal editors should not attempt to investigate authorship disputes themselves because they (like COPE) are rarely in possession of all the facts and, moreover, are not properly constituted to adjudicate on such issues. However, we do consider inappropriate authorship to be a form of scientific misconduct and encourage institutions and journals to have systems in place to encourage good practice and to correct incorrect attributions.

In addition, please bear in mind that COPE does not adjudicate in any of the cases submitted for its consideration by authors. Thus, even if we had regarded this as a case of possible plagiarism, COPE’s role would not have been to decide whether, in fact, plagiarism had occurred, but would simply be to offer guidance and advice as to how the matter might be resolved, remaining impartial and independent at all times. It would not have been for COPE to make a judgement as to whether the alleged plagiarism was proven, or not. This is the responsibility of the journal editor and/or authors’ institution(s). Our primary concern is that a journal has in place satisfactory and adequate procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct and complaints; and that such procedures are duly followed.

It is with regret, therefore, that I have to advise you that this is not a matter with which COPE feels it can become formally involved.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director

_____________________________________________________________________
COPE is a Registered Charity, Number 1123023
Company registered in the UK, Number 6389120, registered office as above

Comment:

The Committee is covering up the fraud committed by the University of Toronto.

None of the documents requested by Tim Feest are considered; the Committee goes a different way - perverting the academic law while completely ignoring the evidence. First, why unpublished research cannot be plagiarised? Second, where did they find evidence of any authorship dispute? Third, why do they give me a completely irrelevant generality - the "COPE’s stance" saying that the Editor and COPE "are rarely in possession of all the facts" while they have an irrefutable documentary proof of plagiarism; and why do they fraudulently claim that the evidence is only available to the University of Toronto?

As a matter of fact, the proof of plagiarism is in the journal's own documents. The journal had accepted for publication a manuscript with my name as the first author. The manuscript was sent by Ellen Larsen, my former PhD supervisor, secretly from me, with her name as the second author. She, then, withdrew the manuscript when I objected to her co-authorship. She, then, again secretly from me, sent another paper claiming exactly the same discoveries as her own, and the journal published it. Comparing this published paper with the unpublished manuscript gives the irrefutable proof of plagiarism, (see the abstracts of the two papers side by side: http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/).

On the other side, the evidence of any authorship dispute is absent; it simply did not take place. Moreover, in several documents written by Ellen Larsen herself before she published her fraudulent paper and after that, she admitted my authorship of the ideas, research and discoveries that she later published as her own. There is a letter of Ellen Larsen to the Editor withdrawing the manuscript from publication. In this letter she confirms my authorship of the research and discoveries in the withdrawn manuscript, but... she says that she will send a "new paper" which is a "similar study" performed by her and her undergraduate student. The "new paper" was a fraud. All that is needed to confirm plagiarism is comparing the two papers. All documents show fraud, not authorship dispute.
=====================12

Re: 'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:23 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

April 29, 2009

Dear Mr. Feest,

I find your conclusion to "consider this to be an authorship dispute rather than a case of plagiarism (which is generally understood to be the unauthorised use of already-published words, data or illustrations, etc." to be incorrect. You further say: "The main reason for our view that this is not plagiarism is your claim that the 1989 article, authored by Larsen and Zorn, plagiarises your "…original and UNPUBLISHED (our emphasis) research…" (to use your words)."

1) Your conclusion and your stated reason for it ignore the accepted definitions of plagiarism including COPE's own definition.

COPE definition of plagiarism is this:
"Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED [my emphasis] ideas, including research grant applications to submission under "new" authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning,research,writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions."

COPE definition includes plagiarism of unpublished work, and, it specifically notes "submission under "new" authorship of a complete paper", both items being in my complaint to the journal. The journal publisher adopted this definition also.

Definition published by the British Medical Journal:
"Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiariser. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, ethics committee applications, or UNPUBLISHED OR PUBLISHED MANUSCRIPTS [my emphasis] in any publication format (print or electronic)."
http://gut.bmj.com/ifora/misconduct.dtl

From the University of Oxford:
"Plagiarism is the copying or paraphrasing of other people’s work or ideas into your own work without full acknowledgement. All PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED [my emphasis] material, whether in MANUSCRIPT [my emphasis], printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition."
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/epsc/plagiarism/

Therefore, my complaint of plagiarism is well within the definition of plagiarism.

2) My case cannot be considered an authorship dispute, as no authorship dispute did take place. This is clear from the documents that I gave to the Editor. E. Larsen had put my name as the first author on the 1987 manuscript. When I complained that E. Larsen cannot put her name as an author on the 1987 MS, she simply withdrew it from publication, without any authorship dispute. Next, she admitted my authorship of the two discoveries and the research reported in this MS, without making any claims whatsoever to her authorship of any part of the research, ideas and discoveries reported in the MS.

The documents contain several admissions, made by E. Larsen, of my authorship of the specific ideas leading to my discoveries. In addition, the paper of Larsen and Zorn contains a footnote admitting that they used my ideas. (However, this footnote is a fraud as it does not specify any of my ideas that Larsen and Zorn used.)

On the other side, to see my complaint of plagiarism in 1989 article by Larsen and Zorn as an authorship dispute is wrong: every complaint of plagiarism is denying the originality of the article in question and denying its author the claim of authorship.

3) You further are saying that COPE would not investigate "whether, in fact, plagiarism had occurred". But, I never asked you to do this.

I asked COPE, on February 2, 2009, "to investigate the misconduct of the Editor and his fraud on the editorial procedure". I relied on the COPE Code of Conduct, the part called "Process for dealing with complaints against Editors referred to COPE". You presently confirm your role: "Our primary concern is that a journal has in place satisfactory and adequate procedures for dealing with allegations of misconduct and complaints; and that such procedures are duly followed." This is exactly what my complaint against the Editor, Dr. P. Reynolds, was about: he did not follow the due procedure, his decision was not based on the comparison of the articles in question, etc.

Presently, I would like to see your reply to this letter.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================13

Re: 'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:47 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>

Dear Mr Pyshnov,

This acknowledges receipt of your e-mail of 29 April 2009 regarding the above matter.

I need to consult further with my colleagues in COPE about the points you have raised and will then respond formally. This may take a little while but I will endeavour to reply by no later than 14 May 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK
=====================14

Re: 'RETRACTION OF OBVIOUSLY PLAGIARISED ARTICLE'

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1:54 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

April 29, 2009

Thank you, Mr. Feest,

I would like to hear the argument, the best way to come to mutual understanding. May I suggest that a biologist with the good knowledge in the area become involved? I am afraid that without such person(s) the nature of my complaints can be lost, or the understanding will take extremely long correspondence.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================15

ALLEGED PLAGIARISM

Monday, May 18, 2009 11:35 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Message contains attachments COPE LETTER TO M PYSHNOV 18MAY09.pdf (26KB)

Dear Michael,

I have now discussed your case further and at length with my COPE colleagues and our response is as attached.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK


ATTACHMENT:

COPE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS

Tim Feest, Operations Director

Shieling House 30, Invincible Road Farnborough Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK
Tel: 44 (0) 1252 371022 E-mail: cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org

IN CONFIDENCE

Mr Michael Pyshnov
E-mail address: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca


Dear Mr Pyshnov,

Re: dispute between Michael Pyshnov and ‘Invertebrate Biology’, Dr Patrick Reynolds and Wiley-Blackwell

Further to your e-mail of 29 April 2009 I have discussed the above matter further with my COPE colleagues.

Wishing not to enter into a debate about the formal definitions of plagiarism or COPE’s interpretation of the term in relation to such matters being brought to its attention, let us deal with the matter accordingly.

The advice and guidance offered by COPE in cases involving alleged plagiarism is clear (and it must be emphasised again that COPE offers only advice and guidance: COPE does not offer judgement or adjudication for any case brought to its attention). The advice from COPE to an editor of a submitted manuscript with disputed authorship would be to decline to publish it and to refer the matter back to the institution concerned. COPE would not advise editors to attempt to resolve the dispute because it is unlikely that they, the Editors, can be in possession of all the related evidence from all parties involved and because they usually do not have the resources or expertise to conduct such an inquiry.

In this instance, the article that you allege has incorrect author attribution that amounts to plagiarism has been published. Your attention now appears to be focussed on securing a retraction from the present Editor-in-Chief, Dr Patrick Reynolds, and the publisher, Wiley-Blackwell. COPE’s generic advice in such matters is presented in the relevant flowchart: we suggest (but do not insist) in cases of serious plagiarism that the journal Editor considers publishing a retraction. It must, rightly, remain the Editor’s and publisher’s prerogative to do so, or not; and the question of exactly what constitutes plagiarism will always be a matter of judgement (except in the most extreme cases when whole published articles are reproduced with different authors). Similarly, the extent of contributions required to fulfil authorship criteria cannot be defined precisely but must be judged for each research project and publication (which is another reason why COPE recommends that editors should not attempt to adjudicate on authorship disputes).

However, there are limits to COPE’s formal participation in this particular case, related to the date of registration with COPE of the Editor-in-Chief Dr Patrick Reynolds – to whom, in March 2008 you submitted your complaint. COPE’s rules of engagement are very clear: COPE cannot, and will not, become involved with ethical matters raised with any journal unless the journal’s Editor or Editor-in-Chief (as nominated by the publisher) was formally registered as a Member of COPE before the matter was raised.

Our records indicate that Dr Reynolds was not registered as a Member of COPE until February 2009.

Accordingly, I have to advise you that in this instance COPE cannot intervene. We must leave it to you to pursue the matter with the publisher and others.

I have copied this letter to Wiley-Blackwell and Dr Reynolds, in confidence, to advise them of our conclusions.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director

cc Wiley-Blackwell
Dr Patrick Reynolds

_____________________________________________________________________
COPE is a Registered Charity, Number 1123023
Company registered in the UK, Number 6389120, registered office as above

Comment:

Here, the Committee ignores the fact that the authorship dispute did not take place. And they refuse to discuss their "interpretation" of the definition of plagiarism that served to re-classify my complaint into an authorship dispute. The corrupt Committee now has no choice but to stick to the practices of a proverbial used car dealer, avoiding the discussion of a failed deception and inventing a new one. Indeed, the Committee gives another pretext for not doing its job: "COPE’s rules of engagement are very clear: COPE cannot, and will not, become involved with ethical matters raised with any journal unless the journal’s Editor or Editor-in-Chief (as nominated by the publisher) was formally registered as a Member of COPE before the matter was raised."

This needs some explanation. True, the law cannot be applied retroactively - COPE cannot hold the Editor responsible for not following the COPE Code of Conduct at the time when he was not a member of COPE and had not subscribed to COPE's rules. However, it is not so simple: in fact, all editors of the Wiley-Blackwell journals must obey the rules of this publisher; and, the Wiley-Blackwell rules quote the COPE rules and all COPE Flowcharts for the procedure that the editors must follow. In other words, the Wiley-Blackwell editors had, for years, the duties identical to the ones of the members of COPE. Therefore, the argument that P. Reynolds was not a member of COPE when I submitted my case to him, is rather a formality. However, I never argued this point since my goal is restoring my authorship of the research, not punishing the Editor.

Understandably, the above rule cannot apply to the conduct of the Editor after he became the member of COPE. And, since T. Feest suggested in his email that I can now "...pursue the matter with the publisher and others", in my next email I said that I might do exactly that - pursue the matter with the Editor. And, since the Editor is now a member of COPE, I will expect him to follow the Code of Conduct and if he will not, I will rely on COPE to correct his procedure. But, as will be seen in the COPE next email (#17), this is not what the corrupt Committee wanted. They mounted the increasingly infantile but firm resistance to resolving this case and returning my work under my name.
=====================16

Re: ALLEGED PLAGIARISM

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:30 PM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

ALLEGED PLAGIARISM

May 20, 2009

Dear Mr. Feest,

I find your last letter titled "Re: dispute between Michael Pyshnov and 'Invertebrate Biology', Dr Patrick Reynolds and Wiley-Blackwell" (pdf) quite puzzling.

1. You do not state your current position on your previous statement that the substance of my case is "authorship dispute", not plagiarism, and your statement that "therefore" "this is not a matter with which COPE feels it can become formally involved." As you remember, I refuted the "authorship dispute" version of my case.

2. Presently, you are saying that "COPE cannot, and will not, become involved with ethical matters raised with any journal unless the journal's Editor or Editor-in-Chief... was formally registered as a Member of COPE before the matter was raised." And you say that the Editor, Dr. Reynolds, was not registered as a Member of COPE until February 2009.

I am very sorry that you did not tell me this at the start and so much time has been wasted, as I was completely confident that COPE is considering my complaint against the Editor ever since the Administrator duly sent my case to the Chair of COPE on February 9, 2009, a week after receiving the case. In fact, the COPE Code of Conduct says that the very first steps are these:

"The COPE Administrator confirms that the complaint is:
a. against a member of COPE
b. within the remit of the Code
c. unresolved after passing properly through the journal's complaints procedure
d. relating to an incident that occurred after this code came into force (1 January 2005)"

There was nothing here about the rule that you now bring up, and I was sure that these steps were behind us.

Moreover, in the continuing exchange of letters with me, over the past several months, you never mentioned this rule. I wonder also why you were trying to present my case as an "authorship dispute" and refuse it as an "authorship dispute", when COPE cannot become involved in the case, as you now say - at all, but for another reason.

3. You now tell me that you copied your letter to the Editor, Dr. Reynolds, and to the publisher, and you advise me thus: "Accordingly, I have to advise you that in this instance COPE cannot intervene. We must leave it to you to pursue the matter with the publisher and others."

In connection with your advice, I have to say this:

a) The Editor, Dr. Reynolds, is now a Member of COPE. If I, as you advise, will pursue the case with him, he will have to act as a Member of COPE and to follow the COPE rules and procedures (the Code and the Flowchart 4(b)).

b) Previously, in his investigation, Dr. Reynolds did not follow the COPE procedure at all (he did not even report the examination of the papers for plagiarism, which is the first step in the COPE Flowchart 4(b)). Therefore, if I will pursue the matter now, Dr. Reynolds as a Member of COPE must reconsider every step in his procedure and bring it in compliance with the Code and the Flowchart.

c) So, if Dr. Reynolds will conduct a new investigation, exactly in a manner required by COPE from a Member of COPE, there would be no reason why this investigation cannot be the subject of the full COPE involvement.

Clearly, the rule excluding from your involvement the cases where the first submission was made before the editor became a member of COPE would be void if I follow your advice to pursue the case. Unless, of course, you will insist that half of the case should be investigated by the Editor in compliance with the Code of Conduct but another half should remain - ignoring the Code.

Wouldn't it be better if you had simply stated that you advise me to ask Dr. Reynolds to reconsider my case, this time following all the COPE rules and procedures, and, that his new investigation can be the subject of formal COPE involvement?

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov.
=====================17
ALLEGED PLAGIARISM

Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:05 AM From: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org> To: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca>
Message contains attachments COPE LETTER TO MPYSHNOV 28MAY09.pdf (32KB)

Dear Michael,

Further to your e-mail of 20 May 2009 regarding the above, I am pleased to attach our formal response.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
www.publicationethics.org

Tel: 01252 371022

Registered Charity No 1123023
Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120
Registered office: Shieling House, 30 Invincible Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK


ATTACHMENT:

COPE COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS

Tim Feest, Operations Director

Shieling House 30, Invincible Road Farnborough Hampshire GU14 7QU, UK
Tel: 44 (0) 1252 371022 E-mail: cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org

Mr Michael Pyshnov
(E-mail address: uoftfraud@yahoo.ca)


Dear Michael,

Thank you for your e-mail of 20 May 2009, the contents of which I have discussed with my colleagues at COPE.

Allow me to preface my response to your specific points with the following general points and a review, if I may, of the matter to date.

As a general observation, COPE endeavours first to offer informal advice to all enquirers in response to their communication. However, before COPE hears a formal complaint or offers more formal advice, we have to check whether the journal concerned is a Member of COPE. This all helps to identify and specify the nature of the grievance and whether or not COPE can become formally involved.

Very often, the initial advice from COPE is for the aggrieved party to ensure that any ‘internal’, non- COPE, procedures used by the Editor, journal and publisher have been adopted and followed.

I would also like to restate COPE’s status and policy with regard to cases submitted for consideration. COPE offers guidance, advice and recommendations designed to help resolve disputes between its members and third parties. COPE cannot and does not insist that any party in a dispute, least of all the Editor, adopts any particular course of action. Ultimately it is for the Editor and the publisher of a journal to decide what action to take. Equally, COPE does not offer adjudication or judgement in the cases submitted to it.

Let me deal now with the specific points from your e-mail of 20 May 2009, in order, with a review of the matter to date as a preface.

1 Preface

1.1 Your request to COPE to investigate what you alleged was “…the misconduct of the Editor and his fraud on the editorial procedure” (your words), referring to Dr Reynolds and your request to him for retraction of a paper published in 1989 in the journal then called ‘Transactions of the American Microscopical Society’, now ‘Invertebrate Biology’, of which Dr Reynolds is currently Editor, was initially submitted to COPE, via the COPE website, on 02 February 2009.

1.2 COPE’s initial appraisal was that COPE might be able to participate formally on the basis that the journal and the publisher appeared to be registered as members. We proceeded on that basis and the case was referred to me in my capacity as the recently-appointed, new Operations Director for COPE. I sought clarification from you of certain aspects in my e-mail dated 23 March 2009: I also apologised for the delay in responding.

1.3 Our initial appraisal, that you appeared to have just cause for submitting a formal complaint to COPE, proved to have been unhelpful in this instance. If with our initial response to you we raised too highly your hopes that COPE could be formally involved; and if we failed to explain fully the policy regarding dates of submission of a complaint and dates of registration with COPE, then we are at fault and apologise for that.

1.4 However, the reason for my enquiries on 23 March 2009 was to ensure that yours was a case with which COPE could be involved under its present rules of engagement. We do not enter into such matters lightly.

2 Specific points

2.1 Interpretation of the dispute. You have stated your view that it is about plagiarism: we have stated that we regard it more as an authorship issue. I indicated in my letter attached to my e-mail of 18 May 2009 that we did not wish to enter into a debate [with you] about the formal definitions of plagiarism or COPE’s interpretation of the term in relation to such matters being brought to its attention. That remains our position as far as this present matter is concerned. Whether or not COPE chooses to consider how the term ‘plagiarism’ is to be interpreted and applied in the future with regard to its advice and guidance is in the gift of the COPE Council.

2.2 It is, however, the dates of various actions that are the key to this matter as far as COPE’s formal involvement is concerned.

2.3 The important dates are: your initial submission to Dr Reynolds and the journal Invertebrate Biology; when Wiley-Blackwell joined COPE; and when Dr Reynolds and the journal Invertebrate Biology were formally registered with COPE by Wiley-Blackwell. (I should explain that the fact of a publisher joining COPE does not automatically result in all of the publisher’s journals being registered at the same time as joining is recorded.) Let us consider these dates in sequence:

(i) It appears from the papers posted in your website that you first raised the matter with Dr Reynolds on 27 March 2008. The relevant phrase from your website, referring to your correspondence with Dr Reynolds, is “…I requested the retraction on March 27, 2008”.

(Just for the record: this retraction relates to your original allegation that the paper published by the journal, as cited thus in your website, ‘Cell Patterns Associated with Normal and Mutant Morphogenesis in Silver-impregnated Imaginal Discs of Drosophila’, Ellen Larsen and Aaron Zorn, Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc., 108(1): 51-57, 1989, plagiarised your work.)

(ii) Wiley-Blackwell joined COPE in July 2008.

(iii) Wiley-Blackwell submitted the name of Dr Reynolds as the Editor of Invertebrate Biology for registration with COPE, with the journal, in February 2009.

(iv) Your first contact with COPE was by e-mail, via the COPE website, on 02 February 2009.

2.4 Thus the date of your first formal complaint to Dr Reynolds and the journal Invertebrate Biology, that is 27 March 2008, was some three months before Wiley-Blackwell joined COPE; and at least 10 months before the Dr Reynolds and the journal were registered with COPE.

2.5 As previously indicated, COPE cannot consider complaints if the activities complained about took place before the journal was registered as a COPE member. In this instance, the evidence is unequivocal: your request for retraction was made to Dr Reynolds some months before either his publisher, or he, was registered with COPE. For this reason COPE cannot be formally involved.

2.6 I note your interpretation of the sentences I used in my letter to you: “[I] have to advise you that in this instance COPE cannot intervene. We must leave it to you to pursue the matter with the publisher and others."

2.7 You appear to believe that this entitles you to re-open the case with Dr Reynolds by requesting again that he pursues the matter (which you originally raised with him on 27 March 2008) and that if this occurs you are then entitled to submit the matter to COPE for formal consideration (since this ‘new’ pursuit of the matter would be regarded by you as having been started after the date at which Dr Reynolds and the journal were registered with COPE).

2.8 Further, you suggest that, “Clearly, the rule excluding from your involvement the cases where the first submission was made before the editor became a member of COPE would be void if I follow your advice to pursue the case.”

2.9 Please do not interpret my words in this manner. My phrase “…leave it to you to pursue the matter with the publisher and others” was intended to reinforce the fact that COPE cannot be formally involved for the reasons now re-stated in Paragraph 2 above; and that if you choose to continue to seek retraction you must do so, as you see fit, directly with Wiley-Blackwell (as publisher now of the journal concerned); with Dr Reynolds (as Editor of the journal concerned) and with Invertebrate Biology (the journal concerned); and possibly others (of your choosing). The rule excluding COPE’s involvement where first submission of a case to COPE occurs after registration of the Editor and journal concerned would not become void if you pursue the case. I used the verb ‘pursue’ in its definition as ‘to continue to investigate or discuss [a topic]’. Our view is that if you return to Dr Reynolds or Wiley-Blackwell you are doing no more than continuing a case that was first opened with them in March 2008 and which relates to a paper published in 1989.

Our conclusion remains unchanged. COPE cannot become formally involved with this case, under COPE’s present rules of engagement, because the matter was originally raised with the Editor and journal concerned before they were registered as Members of COPE.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Feest
Operations Director

_____________________________________________________________________
COPE is a Registered Charity, Number 1123023
Company registered in the UK, Number 6389120, registered office as above
=====================18

Re: ALLEGED PLAGIARISM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 2:33 AM From: "Michael Pyshnov" <uoftfraud@yahoo.ca> To: "Tim Feest" <cope_opsdirector@publicationethics.org>

COPE sabotaged its own investigation

June 24, 2009

Dear Mr. Feest,

Your last letter to me (May 28, 2009) gives your review of the matter to date. I have an entirely different view of what you and your colleagues have done so far. I believe that the Committee on Publication Ethics has sabotaged its own inquiry into my allegations of editorial misconduct, moreover, you have tried to persuade me that my allegations of plagiarism are not allegations of plagiarism.

1. Misinterpretation of the complaint of plagiarism.

The first thing you did was changing the definition of plagiarism by excluding plagiarism of unpublished research. You said: "Our conclusion is that we consider this to be an authorship dispute rather than a case of plagiarism (which is generally understood to be the unauthorised use of already-published words, data or illustrations, etc.)"

I, then, quoted for you the definitions of plagiarism (one issued by your Committee, one by the British Medical Journal and one by the University of Oxford) that all include plagiarism of unpublished research. So, it is not "generally understood" that only published research can be plagiarised; you are wrong.

Excluding unpublished papers is not consistent with your Code of Conduct either (which says: "Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.")

You responded to my objection by claiming that your Committee has its own "interpretation" of the definition of plagiarism, but you refused to spell out the "interpretation". You said: "Wishing not to enter into a debate about the formal definitions of plagiarism or COPE’s interpretation of the term in relation to such matters being brought to its attention, let us deal with the matter accordingly."

Obviously, you did not "interpret" the definition, you changed it. And, you used this changed and false definition to dismiss my complaint. Moreover, you made an impossible interpretation of my complaint as an "authorship dispute", and, when I showed to you by referring to documents that no authorship dispute took place, you ignored this fact.

Let me tell you that it is unethical to keep secret your "interpretations" of the universally accepted rules that you apply to the cases given to you. The "interpretations" must be made clear; you cannot use the methods of the court of the Holy Inquisition. Let me remind you that your Committee is a Registered Charity having certain obligations. Your committee says this: "A complaint may be referred to COPE by an author, reader, reviewer, Editor or publisher." (COPE Code of Conduct, "Process for dealing with complaints against Editors referred to COPE") Are you telling me that the scientific community is not entitled to know what are the interpretations of the definitions the Committee is using? I am astonished by your last letter which says: "...we did not wish to enter into a debate [with you] about the formal definitions of plagiarism or COPE’s interpretation of the term in relation to such matters being brought to its attention." Let me tell you that the first person to whom you must make your "interpretations" of the formal definitions clear is me.

You obviously do not feel any responsibility to the scientific community, yet, the very reason for your Committee's existence and your charitable status is to serve the scientific community by upholding the ethical principles of scientific publishing.

2. Misinterpretation of the Editor's obligations and the COPE's own obligations.

Months after my case was accepted by the COPE, you erected a second barrier preventing the COPE from considering my complaint, you said: "COPE cannot, and will not, become involved with ethical matters raised with any journal unless the journal’s Editor (...) was formally registered as a Member of COPE before the matter was raised."

You said that the Editor, Dr. Reynolds, was not a member of COPE when I submitted my case to him, but that he now is a member of COPE. And you said: "We must leave it to you to pursue the matter with the publisher and others."

I responded to you saying that if I now pursue the matter with the Editor (as you see possible), he will have to act as a member of COPE, i.e. to follow the COPE's Code of Conduct and other rules. And I would expect that if he acts contrary to the Code, COPE should become formally involved.

However, in your last letter you said: "Our view is that if you return to Dr Reynolds or Wiley-Blackwell you are doing no more than continuing a case that was first opened with them in March 2008 and which relates to a paper published in 1989", and you again refused any involvement.

Are you and your colleagues telling me that since my case against the plagiarist was in the hands of the Editor before he became a member of COPE, COPE will never ever consider any complaint against him? And if this Editor, who is now a member of COPE, will violate the Code of Conduct when I try to pursue my case with him, COPE will look the other way? Are you telling me that my case against a plagiarist is doomed?

You are completely wrong here. I am not asking COPE to enforce the Code of Conduct retroactively. I am talking about the possible COPE involvement if the Editor, who is now a member of COPE, will act contrary to the Code of Conduct.

Dr. Reynolds, when he was not a member of COPE, refused to retract the published paper that blatantly plagiarises (I am using the present tense as this paper is continuing to falsify the record of science) my discoveries and my PhD research of five years. He refused to compare this paper with the unpublished manuscript having my name as the first author and claiming exactly the same discoveries. He refused to consider all other documents of this case, the documents written by the plagiarist herself who admitted that I am the author of the discoveries, ideas and the research in question.

The Code of Conduct, of course, allows the editors to change their own decisions and even the decisions of the previous editors when it's needed. There is no reason why I can not ask the Editor now, when he has to follow the Code of Conduct, to retract the fraudulent, plagiarised paper published by an impostor and parasite. I can insist on returning the important discoveries under my name and insist on correcting the academic and scientific record, provided that COPE will have a full and formal involvement if the Editor violates the Code of Conduct now. Why are you preventing all of this?

3. Has your Committee done this deliberately?

It appears bewildering to me that so far you are trying to avoid any involvement in this case, while, in fact, you have admitted that I "...appeared to have just cause for submitting a formal complaint to COPE..."

A year ago your Committee assumed the position of czar of ethics in scientific publications in the entire world, adopting 5000 scientific journals that must obey your Committee's Code of Conduct and listen to the Committee's advice. Maintaining the integrity of academic and scientific record in publications is COPE's proclaimed goal. COPE boldly advertises its service to the editors: "Anyone for Audit?" You are also accepting complaints from the scientists, authors and the readers about the "misconduct" (including fraud) of the editors of scientific journals. You specialise in biomedical publishing. Practically all ethics and integrity of research in publications dealing with drug testing, cancer research and other areas vital to public health are under your "ethical guidelines", and this research and publications are often the subject of investigations by your Committee.

Yet, in my case, your decisions so far have only helped the efforts by the University of Toronto to leave the academic and scientific record permanently falsified. If you do this in other cases, your Committee on Publication Ethics becomes a disaster for science, scientists and the public health.

And here is my question to you: will you apologise for making the impossible misinterpretations, or did you do this deliberately to reject any complaints against the Editor because, for some improper reason, COPE wanted to leave the academic and scientific record permanently falsified?

Sincerely yours,
Michael Pyshnov
=====================
I did not receive any answer to this letter.

There is no doubt that the goal of the Committee was to cover up the fraud of the University of Toronto. The Committee also contributed their own fraud to this affair: they falsified the definition of plagiarism to re-classify my complaint into an "authorship dispute"; nobody, including the University of Toronto, did this trick before.

Both, the Editor, P. Reynolds, and then the Committee on Publication Ethics, completely avoided giving any reference to the documents or even mentioning any documents. The facts and the evidence were completely ignored. I am quite certain that both of them followed instructions from the University of Toronto telling them that any reference to the documents is a taboo. For years, University of Toronto is prohibiting anyone, including the press, to look at the plagiarised paper. The Editor refused to retract Larsen's paper without doing so much as comparing it with the withdrawn manuscript. The only grounds for his refusal were that "...neither the journal nor its co-publishers have standing to challenge their [investigations of the University of Toronto] legitimacy." (See my correspondence with the Editor: http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/journal.htm)

But, if the University of Toronto cannot be challenged and the papers published in the journal cannot be questioned, what is the role of the Editor? Does the Editor exist to take bribes in exchange for publishing fraud? Does the Committee on Publication Ethics exist to take bribes for allowing the Editor not to investigate fraud published in his journal?

The Committee is ruled by the Council from which some are chosen to judge a particular case. The chosen members remain anonymous. The Council consists of 17 members who are the employees and small entrepreneurs in and around the publishing and pharmaceutical industries, usually holding medical degrees. When I suggested that a competent scientist should be involved in the investigation, the Committee ignored my suggestion. They did everything to get rid of this most outrageous case of plagiarism and fraud ever perpetrated in a university. The Committee was making sure that the academic and scientific record remains permanently falsified.

The Committee is a Registered Charity. It so happened that this organisation has no supervising body of honest scientists who can stop the fraud of the Committee. The public has no means to know how many complaints were thrown out; no documentary record of their investigations is available. Does the Committee sell favourable opinions, advice and audit results to their friends? Do they selectively protect crooks and keep the crooked institutions scandal-free?

The self-appointed Committee was formed in 1997. In the beginning, they published stinging attacks on the growing fraud in the scientific institutions and the journals (see ANNUAL REPORTS on the COPE web site). Was it an insincere political move propelling their image as honest rebels, or did they later become corrupt as those pigs in the well-known story of G. Orwell? The fact is that this corrupt organisation now has the investigative and advising powers over 5000 scientific journals, potentially, also - all universities and hospitals and all other research institutions world-wide. The Committee must be dismantled.

WAIT A MINUTE! ON JULY 20, I RECEIVED A NEW LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE.

This letter is continuing the deceit that was going on in the previous letters, except that now the Committee admits: "We probably did make a mistake with our interpretation of the term ‘plagiarism’..."

This letter, however, is valuable as a different genre: it is a piece of hilarious comedy. This is a Tartuffe with extended argumentation. I put it on a separate page - their original pdf. Read it slowly. I do not give here any comments to it as I do not want to spoil the entertainment for the readers.

I don't think this letter should be answered: it is a gold mine for criminologists - a multitude of self-incriminating discrepancies and other jewels, but should I take it seriously? I don't think so.

The Committee must be dismantled.