|
Abstract
|
SafetyLit NOTICE:
THIS ARTICLE WAS RETRIEVED BY THE AUTHORS FOR UNSATISFACTORY PEER REVIEWING AND INAPPROPRIATE ACCEPTANCE AS-IS by Journal of Forensic Research and OMICS publishing group.
At the authors' request (see correspondence below) this article has been removed from the journal publisher's (OMICS) website. The authors believe that although they submitted the report, it was published without sufficient peer review. This, the author believes, could have led to a lack of the improvements that are normally expected to occur as a manuscript flows through the review process. One of the authors requested that the article be removed from SafetyLit. As the article has been removed from the OMICS site and the doi number (10.4172/2157-7145.S1-004) now points to the publisher home page; SafetyLit will comply with the authors request by placing this notice or retraction. In doing so, we are complying with laws in the European Union that allow a "right to be forgotten" [Court of Justice, European Union C-131/12].
That said, we observe that records of the article remain in numerous places on the internet -- databases that list articles that have been cited in current research (Google Scholar, Web of Science, ResearchGate, etc.). Thus, users of SafetyLit and these other database services are likely to be frustrated when they encounter citing articles they cannot find. For that reason, we remove the article content (although this content existed for many months online and is still available in some corners of the internet) but not the article record. As with other bibliographic databases and publisher websites, we maintain the reference to the article and note that it was rescinded at the authors' request.
We believe that it is unfortunate that this interesting paper is lost to researchers. It raised challenging issues.
The purpose of SafetyLit is to provide information to allow users to identify and find articles (both good and poor) that have been published about injury prevention and safety promotion topics... An important part of professionalism is to identify flawed publications and counter the flaws by commenting upon them in a letter to the editor of the journal where the article was published. Further, the best knowledge today may become outdated tomorrow. Although published corrections and errata are included [in SafetyLit when available], the older articles with inaccuracies are not removed from the site. These out-of-date items may be useful for authors or researchers who are examining the progression of scientific or social thought on a topic.
SafetyLit includes summaries of reports about injury occurrence and risk factors. Articles are considered relevant if they concern any of the pre-event or event elements of the Haddon Matrix; the epidemiology of injury; or the financial, personal, or societal costs or consequences of the any injury or risk factor. Articles concerning treatment for injuries or complications of medical care are excluded except when the article also contains information on one of the inclusion criteria. We also include reports on other topics that may help a reader to make decisions about research or prevention strategies and priorities.
The criteria for selecting report for inclusion are simple. If the answer to any of the following questions is "yes", then the report is likely to be included:
- Do the SafetyLit reviewers find the report interesting?
- Has reference to the article been made by the print or broadcast media?
- Are SafetyLit readers likely to hear of a report from a colleague and want to respond knowledgeably?
- Are SafetyLit readers likely to be questioned about the report from a member of the population they serve?
- Does the report contain findings that are likely to be used to oppose the actions or recommendations of a SafetyLit reader?
Correspondence from one of the authors (Paul Vaucher) to SafetyLit:
Please remove the following article from your website. I had this article retrieved given OMICS was unable to provide me with simple answers on the reviewing process that seemed to have been flawed.
Causality in applied behavioural science: a call for transversal research in traffic medicine
I have also provided you with the proof of OMICS lack of serious in its reviewing process and would suggest you never site any of their published articles.
Thank you!
Paul Vaucher, PhD Neuroscience, MSc Clinical Trials, Di.O. Research project leader, Unit of Psychology & Traffic Medicine, CURML-CHUV Distance learning programme tutor at the EPH, Londons School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Mobile: --------- E-mail: ------ Indexed publications: ResearchGate or ResearcherID A-6259-2009
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Journal of Forensic Research Date: 13 December 2013 at 13:11 Subject: RE: Review process of a paper To: Paul Vaucher <---> Cc: ----
Dear Dr. Paul Vaucher,
We apologize for the inconvenience caused at this context.
We have cleared all the existing data regarding the concern from our site.
We have informed the respective Google department to withdraw the article.
We highly appreciate your patience.
Hope we have cleared the addressed query.
Please do not hesitate to contact us on any further queries.
With regards,
Scott Lessley
Editorial Assistant
From: Paul Vaucher [mailto:----] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 6:05 AM To: Srinubabu Gedela; OMICS Group; Editor-Forensic Research; Shewale, Jaiprakash
Subject: Fwd: Review process of a paper
Dear OMICS J Forensic Research editor, managing editors, and founder,
I am having a lot of trouble getting a simple answer from your group about the reviewing process my article went through. After three E-mails, I have not received any response from your group. Even if my case might have been an exception, your group does not seem to feel very concerned about the seriousness of the problem.
Apparently, my article was peer reviewed by a single reviewer and the journal's editor in chief had no way to check who this person was and if they had any expertise in the field of my article. Furthermore, apparently my article was accepted for publication by an anonymous managing editor and not any of the journal's academic editors. The Editor of the special issue you had me publish my article in had never even heard of me before I started investigating on your strange editorial process and long after my article had been accepted.
I therefore consider the peer reviewing process to have been flawed and wish to have my article retrieved from your journal.
By this letter, I therefore officially request my article to be withdrawn from your journal and to retrieve references and links to any of its content. If my request is not fulfilled within 30 days, I will do the necessary to initiate a legal action against your group.
Regards,
Paul Vaucher, Di.O., MSc CT PhD candidate, Lemanic Neuroscience Doctoral School, University of Geneva Distance learning programme tutor at the EPH, Londons School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research assistant at the University of Geneva Medical School
Mobile: ------- E-mail: -----.com Indexed publications: ResearchGate or ResearcherID A-6259-2009
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Vaucher ----- Date: 2 December 2013 15:52 Subject: Fwd: Review process of a paper To: ------ Cc: "Shewale, Jaiprakash" ----
Dear Dr Gedela,
I am a fervent defender of open source and was very happy to see that such a journal was created in forensic medicine.
As you might have heard, I am very displeased with the editorial process provided by your journal. Not only was I not warned I would be charged for a paper I was invited to write, but the entire reviewing process has been everything but transparent.
I am seriously considering asking you to remove my paper from your journal if I cannot have the guarantee that the review process was correctly done. By this, I mean reviewed by at least two reviewers in the field of my paper and accepted by an academic editor.
Reference number: 2157-7145-S1-004 JFR Special edition: Criminology Forensic
Editor: Thomas J Holt (quit his position before the issue was released and was apparently never replaced)
Article title: Causality in Applied Behavioural Science; A Call For Transversal Research In Traffic Medicine Link: http://www.omicsonline.org/causality-in-applied-behavioural-science-a-call-for-transversal-research%20in-traffic-medicine-2157-7145.S1-004.php
From the reply I received from your editing team (see attachment), I understand only one reviewer provided a feedback for my paper and my paper was then accepted by an unknown managing editor. How can a managing editor decide to accept or refuse a paper without having the opinion of an academic editor? Are your managing editors trained to assess the competency of reviewers in providing a feedback? In this process, what is exactly the role of the Editor in chief, executive editor and all the academic editors as those have apparently never seen my submission?
For the sake of OMICS reputation, I truly hope I was an exception. I would therefore be very grateful if you could provide me an explanation what happened during my paper's reviewing process.
You will understand that without any reasonable explanation, I will be forced to ask you to remove my publication from your journal.
Thank you for taking my request seriously,
Paul Vaucher, Di.O., MSc CT PhD candidate, Lemanic Neuroscience Doctoral School, University of Geneva Distance learning programme tutor at the EPH, Londons School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research assistant at the University of Geneva Medical School
Mobile: +41 ------ E-mail: ---- Indexed publications: ResearchGate or ResearcherID A-6259-2009
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Vaucher ------ Date: 28 November 2013 12:14 Subject: Re: Review process of a paper To: "Shewale, Jaiprakash" <--->
Dear Editor-in-chief,
Thank you so much for your fast reply and the time you have taken to investigate my enquiry. I was hoping OMICS could at least provide you a name for the reviewer (I do not need it, I just need you to attest this reviewer had the qualification to review my paper).
So if I understand correctly from OMICS editorial staff's response, the manuscript was reviewed by one anonymous reviewer and the paper was then accepted by a member of the managing editors given the positive feedback from this anonymous reviewer.
I have a few questions I would truly appreciate you could answer the following questions to help me understand the review process within the Journal of Forensic Research.
Is it commun to only have one reviewer comment articles published within the Journal of Forensic Research?
Are papers attributed to academic editors and how are they chosen?
Do academic editors ever have the opportunity to refuse a paper?
As editor-is-chief, do you have anything to say on the review process?
Both my acceptance lettre and the response that was sent to you were written anonymously. Is it commun for OMICS publisher staff not to name themselves when providing feedback and accepting papers?
Thank you for providing me with these answers as I would hope your are also worried about the apparent low quality of the review process within your journal.
Paul Vaucher, Di.O., MSc CT PhD candidate, Lemanic Neuroscience Doctoral School, University of Geneva Distance learning programme tutor at the EPH, Londons School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research assistant at the University of Geneva Medical School
Indexed publications: ResearchGate or ResearcherID A-6259-2009
On 28 November 2013 10:53, Journal of Forensic Research wrote:
Dear Dr. Jaiprakash G. Shewale & Paul Vaucher,
Greetings from the Journal of Forensic Research
Glad to receive your kind response.
This is to bring to your kind notice about the article (S1-004) Entitled: “Causality in Applied Behavioural Science; A Call For Transversal Research In Traffic Medicine” is strongly recommended for the publication in the peer review process by one of the reviewer who is expert in this field. So, the manuscript got acceptance to publish with the initial submitted file.
We have also notified to the Author through our Editorial Tracking system regarding this and the acceptance of the manuscript.
Hope we have clarified your queries.
Feel free for further assistance.
Have a great day.
Warm regards
Editorial Assistant
Journal of Forensic Research
From: Shewale, Jaiprakash [mailto:---] Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2013 2:28 AM To: editors_openaccess@omicsonline.org; kumar@omicsonline.org; JFR- Editor (editor.jfr@omicsonline.org) Subject: Review process of a paper
Hi Ashwin and All.
Please let me know the Review process followed for the following paper.
Reference number: 2157-7145-S1-004 JFR Special edition: Criminology Forensic Editor: Thomas J Holt Article title: Causality in Applied Behavioural Science; A Call For Transversal Research In Traffic Medicine Link: http://www.omicsonline.org/causality-in-applied-behavioural-science-a-call-for-transversal-research%20in-traffic-medicine-2157-7145.S1-004.php
Thank you so much.
Jai
Jaiprakash G. Shewale, Ph.D.
Technical Director
Human Identification
Life Technologies
In traffic medicine, identifying the cause of accidents has become important to define legal responsibilities, define modalities of reimbursements by insurances, suggest new road safety regulations, identify underlying mechanisms of risk behaviours, and develop grounded prevention policies. For traffic medicine, the challenge we are now facing is the complexity of transposing knowledge through different domains. This article will therefore expose different causal definitions used by different scientific domains and highlight the importance of interdisciplinary transversal research in the field. This article can serve as a conceptual framework for constructing future interdisciplinary studies in the field of applied behavioural science. |