HUNTINGTON — A scientist is suing the Public Library of Science seeking an injunction to stop it from publishing a notice of concern regarding a four-year-old research article.
The Public Library of Science is doing business as PLOS One.
Soudamani Singh contracted with the defendant to publish an article in its medical journal on the topic of intestinal physiology in 2018, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Singh claims the title of the article was "Cyclooxygenase pathway mediates the inhibition of Naglutamine co-transporter B0AT1 in rabbit villus cells during chronic intestinal inflammation," and as part of the general process for publishing with the defendant, the defendant solicited a commitment from Singh, and her co-authors, that the authors of the article would agree to pay money if the defendant ultimately accepted the article for publishing.
"Defendant would only agree to review and analyze the Article if Plaintiff agreed to commit to paying money in the event Defendant accepted the Article," the complaint states. "Plaintiff’s commitment to pay the funds should Defendant accept the Article was still not a guaranty that Defendant would ultimately accept the Article for publishing."
Singh claims as part of the process to accept articles, the defendant thoroughly vetted the article and she and her colleagues spent extensive hours fielding inquiries from the research editors employed by the defendants.
Following the extensive vetting process, the defendant accepted the article and demanded payment from the plaintiff and her co-authors, according to the suit.
Singh claims they paid the funds and the article was published in 2018.
In June 2022, Singh and her co-authors discovered that one of the figures in the article inadvertently contained data from another unrelated article the authors had been previously drafting, but the inadvertent inclusion of the wrong figure in the 2018 publication did not change the data contained within the article itself or in any way alter conclusions of the article, according to the suit.
"In an attempt to be thorough and transparent, Plaintiff, and her co-authors, self-reported the issue with the Figure to Defendant requesting that Defendant publish a 'Notice of Correction,' as is customary in these situations, wherein Defendant would publish a brief notice in a current, or future, publication which referenced the Article and contained a brief explanation regarding the Figure and containing the correct Figure that should have been included in the Article during its 2018 original publication date," the complaint states.
Singh claims that included within her self-reporting on the issue of the figure was a copy of the correct figure.
Rather than simply publishing the notice of correction containing the explanation and correct figure to the article, the defendant's research editors made numerous inquiries about the article which were duplicative of the vetting process that the plaintiff had already reviewed with the defendant nearly four years prior.
About nine months after self-reporting the figure, the defendant stated they would not publish a notice of correction and, instead, would post a notice of concern, which in the research publication world, has quite a negative connotation and implies a certain level of intentional misconduct or something otherwise nefarious, according to the suit.
Singh claims if the publication is permitted to post a notice of concern instead of correction, she will suffer irreparable harm to her reputation in the scientific community, loss of career advancement opportunities and loss of wages.
Singh is seeking a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction. She is represented by Matthew L. Ward of Dinsmore & Shohl in Huntington.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 3:23-cv-00317