Iraqi journals suspected of coercion, two others dropped from major citation databases
The influential citation database Scopus has delisted three journals from Iraq, dealing a blow to the country's recent efforts to boost the standing of its scholarly publications. One of the journals, the Medical Journal of Babylon, was also removed from Clarivate's Web of Science index. This comes as a result of allegations and evidence of coercion, with authors being forced to cite these journals to graduate, a practice that is considered scientific misconduct.
The Medical Journal of Babylon, published by the University of Babylon in Hilla, faced scrutiny for its coercive practices. Authors were reportedly pressured to cite its articles, a form of citation manipulation that is widespread in Iraq but deemed unethical. Elsevier, the owner of Scopus, flagged the journal for re-evaluation in September due to concerns and outlier publication performance, eventually delisting it in October.
Elsevier also removed the Diyala Journal of Medicine, published by the University of Diyala in Baqubah, and the Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, published by the University of Baghdad, from its database. Clarivate, on the other hand, dropped the Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences from its Master Journal List, citing quality criteria as the reason.
The Iraqi government has been working to strengthen the international rankings of its universities and scientific journals, which are increasingly getting indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. However, the country's limited funding and the prevalence of scientific misconduct, as reported by academics, pose challenges to these efforts.
This issue is not isolated to Iraq; we previously reported on an Iraqi university forcing students to cite its journals to graduate. The chief editorial adviser of the Medical Journal of Babylon, Alaa H. Al-Charrakh, was also accused of coercing authors to cite his publication. While Al-Charrakh denied some allegations, he acknowledged asking authors to cite his work, which is considered unethical.
The anonymous whistleblowers who alerted Scopus and Retraction Watch to their concerns faced backlash from Al-Charrakh, who called them 'spiteful people with psychological complexes' and demanded they be brought to Iraq. This incident highlights the challenges of addressing scientific misconduct and the potential consequences for those who report it.
For those interested in supporting Retraction Watch, contributions are tax-deductible and can be made via PayPal. You can also follow us on various social media platforms, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest for the latest updates on retractions and scientific misconduct.
