tmp5A8E TMP

Archives of Biological Sciences:
From Falling Star to Glimmer of Hope

Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva*
P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho post office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan
Abstract
The Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS), the official journal of the Serbian Biological Society, was found guilty of academic
corruption in June 2014. Caught charging astronomical article processing fees when in fact none should have been charged, a
series of faults and concerns with peer review and journal management of this journal that carries a 2014 JCI impact factor of
0.718 were subsequently discovered by the Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES). In a swift move
that was aimed at restoring trust in the scientific community, the entire editor board led by the editor-in-chief (EIC) Prof.
Boidar uri from the University of Belgrades Faculty of Biology, was removed. Among the additional claims made by
CEON/CEES were excessive self-citation by ABS, an unacceptably large number of papers by the EIC and his family
members (i.e., cronyism), plagiarism and predatory behaviour. On July 17, 2014, ABS had elected a new editor board under the
leadership of its new EIC, Dr. Goran Poznanovi of the Institute for Biological Research "Sinia Stankovi". For several months,
no apparent pro-active action to reform the publishing policies appeared to be in place, but a recent string of eight retractions,
with another eight forthcoming, possibly based on post-publication peer review, suggests that ABS is in a stage of academic
reform and self-introspection. Although ABS has yet a long way to go in restoring public trust and in cleaning up what appears
to be a heavily corrupted literature that might not have been sufficiently peer reviewed, there are some positive signs one year
after the crisis hit ABS that this case could serve as a model for academic reform in so-called predatory open access journals.
This manuscript highlights my personal perspectives and involvement in the case and my hope for the academic community.
Keywords: Balkan science; cronyism; expression of concern; peer review; plagiarism; quality control; retraction; reform
Published online: October 3, 2015. * jaimetex@yahoo.com
2015 The Author. This open access article is under the CC BY-NC license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Cite as: Teixeira da Silva (2015) Archives of Biological Sciences: from falling star to glimmer of hope. Self-published, 8 pp.
1. Archives of Biological Sciences: The Fall from Grace

In early June, 2014, I submitted a short research note to the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS) [1], the official journal of
the Serbian Biological Society (SBC). Within the space of 24 hours, I received an automatic acceptance e-mail from the ABS
editor-in-chief (EIC) Prof. Boidar uri also the President of the SBC at that time from the University of Belgrades
Faculty of Biology in Serbia. Together with that e-mail was the request to pay an article processing fee (APF) of 1785.
Clearly displeased with this request and the lack of peer review, I demanded an immediate explanation while sharing my
communications with the journal with several blog owners and academics. This set off a series of events that would irreparably
change the history of ABS forever. Three key events highlighted ABS fall from grace. The first was the publication of this case
in early June 2014 at Jeffrey Bealls blog [2]. The second was the subsequent publication of an extension of the same story at
Retraction Watch [3] which was based on a story by Mio Tatalovi at SciLogs [4]. The third was a formal investigation
initiated by the President of the Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES) [5], Prof. Pero ipka, which
runs the Serbian national citation index in cooperation with the National Library of Serbia. Four key findings by that
preliminary investigation were: 1) excessive self-citation by ABS, most likely in a bid to manipulate the impact factor (IF); 2)
an excessive number of papers by the EIC, his son and daughter (i.e., cronyism), with 25% of citations in the Web of Science
for ABS in 2013 derived from Prof. uris papers; 3) claims of plagiarism and self-plagiarism; 4) predatory marketing
behaviour, including the charging of APFs when the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) clearly indicated otherwise
(Appendix 1). Based on these provisional findings, CEON/CEES called for the Ministry as regulatory and at the same time
financing institution to: temporarily withhold ABS the status of a scientific journal, i.e. to suppress it from the list of
categorized journals until correction of all deficiencies, but not for the shorter period than two years; deny ABS funding for at
least one year; and call for the ABS publishers to urgently dismiss the Editorial Board and the Editor-In-Chief, and to promptly
inform the Thomson Reuters, the publisher of WoS/JCR, about the reasons for the dismissal in order to prevent sanctions
against ABS. In parallel, we submitted the request about dismissal (3) directly to all ten co-publishers of ABS. By July 14,
2014, the management board of the SBS was replaced, as was the entire editor board of ABS. Heading ABS as the new EIC, Dr.
Goran Poznanovi of the Institute for Biological Research "Sinia Stankovi" called for clear reforms, promising an overhaul
to ABS; these promises of reform were also made on the ABS web-site (Appendix 2). Based on these promises made to the
scientific community, ABS was delisted from Jeffrey Bealls list of predatory open access journals [6].
2. Eight Retractions at Archives of Biological Sciences: Summary and Significance

By early July, 2015, eight retractions in two consecutive ABS journal issues had appeared.
Volume 67, Issue 1 (2015)
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/issue.aspx?issueid=2414
https://doaj.org/toc/1821-4339/67/1
https://doaj.org/toc/1821-4339/67/2
Retraction 1
Oberemok V, Nyadar P. The Selectivity of DNA Insecticides, Arch. Biol. Sci. 2014; 66(4): 1479-1483, DOI:
10.2298/ABS1404479O
Archives of Biological Sciences, 2015 67(1):339-339
DOI: 10.2298/ABS141218045E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641400045E#.VZdyQMsVjIU
Retraction notice:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2015/0354-46641400045E.pdf
Retracted paper:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2014/0354-46641404479O.pdf
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: The Selectivity of DNA Insecticides, by Oberemok V. and
Nyadar P., published in the Archives of Biological Sciences Vol. 66, Issue 4, 2014. Due to inadequate exchange of information
at the time when the complete Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences were replaced, the
authors of the above article did not receive timely information regarding the status of their paper. The authors continued their
research and submitted it to another journal where it was published: Oberemok V, Skorokhod O. Single-stranded DNA
fragments of insect-specific nuclear polyhedrosis virus act as selective DNA insecticides for gypsy moth control. Pest.
Biochem. Physiol. 2014; 113: 1-7. doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.05.005. Unaware of this, the Archives of Biological Sciences
published the article in Vol. 66, Issue 4, 2014. The first author informed the Editorial Board about this in December 2014 and
expressed his wish to have the article retracted. The Editorial Board reviewed both articles and confirmed that they partially
overlap.
Retraction 2
Nedeljkovi M, Kartelija G, Radenovi L. Modification of the acetylcholine-induced current of the snail Helix pomatia L. by
fast temperature changes. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2005; 57(3): 181-7, DOI: 10.2298/ABS0503181N
DOI: 10.2298/ABS1501341E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641501341E#.VZdz_csVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2005/0354-46640503181N.pdf
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Modification of the acetylcholine-induced current of the snail
Helix pomatia L. by fast temperature changes, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2005, Vol. 57, Issue 3. The
Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Nedeljkovic M, Kartelija G, Radenovic L,
Todorovic N. The effect of cooling on the acetylcholine-induced current of identified Helix pomatia Br Neuron. J Comp
Physiol A. 2005; 191(5): 445-60. This claim is correct and the entire paper, except the abstract, is a verbatim copy of the earlier
one. After confirmation of this fact, the Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper
immediately. We apologize to the readers of the journal that it took so many years to notice this error and to retract the paper.
We request readers of the journal to directly get in touch with the editorial office and the editors of the journal for similar cases
in the future, so that they can be handled promptly.
Retraction 3
Kartelija G, Nedeljkovi M, Radenovi L. Photosensitive neurons in mollusks, Arch Biol Sci. 2005; 57(4):247-58, DOI:
10.2298/ABS0504247K
2
DOI: 10.2298/ABS150317025E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500025E#.VZd1n8sVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2005/0354-46640504247K.pdf
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Photosensitive neurons in mollusks, published in the Archives
of Biological Sciences in 2005, Vol. 57, Issue 4. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier
paper: Kartelija G, Nedeljkovic M, Radenovic L. Photosensitive neurons in mollusks. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr
Physiol. 2003, 134(3):483-495. This claim is correct and the entire paper is a verbatim copy of the earlier one. After
confirmation of this fact, the Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper
Retraction 4
Radenovi L, Selakovi V. Mitochondrial superoxide production and MnSOD activity following exposure to an agonist and
antagonists of ionotropic receptors in rat brain, Arch Biol Sci. 2005; 57(1):1-10, DOI: 10.2298/ABS0501001R
DOI: 10.2298/ABS150318026E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500026E#.VZd2MssVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2005/0354-46640501001R.pdf
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Mitochondrial superoxide production and MnSOD activity
following exposure to an agonist and antagonists of ionotropic glutamate receptors in rat brain, published in the Archives of
Biological Sciences in 2005, Vol. 57, Issue 1. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier
paper: Radenovi L, Selakovi V, Kartelija G, Todorovi N, Nedeljkovi M. Differential effects of NMDA and AMPA/kainate
receptor antagonists on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in rat brain following intrahippocampal injection. Brain
Res Bull, 2004, 64(1):85-93. This claim is correct and almost the entire paper is a verbatim copy of the earlier one. After
Retraction 5
Radenovi L, Selakovi V. Kainate-induced oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in the rat brain, Arch Biol Sci, 2005,
57(4):259-266, DOI: 10.2298/ABS0504259R
DOI: 10.2298/ABS150318027E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500027E#.VZd278sVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Kainate-induced oxidative stress and neurotoxicity in the rat
brain, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2005, Vol. 57, Issue 4. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that
this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Radenovi L, Jovanovi M, Vasiljevi I, Selakovi V. Superoxide production and the
activity of MnSOD in rat brain after intrahippocampal kainate-induced seizure. Neurosci Res Comm, 2004, 34(2):92-103. This
claim is correct and almost the entire paper is a verbatim copy of the earlier one. After confirmation of this fact, the
Editor-in-Chief of the Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper immediately. We apologize to the
readers of the journal that it took so many years to notice this error and to retract the paper. We request readers of the journal to
directly get in touch with the editorial office and the editors of the journal for similar cases in the future, so that they can be
handled promptly.
Retraction 6
Radenovi L, Selakovi V, Jana B, Todorovi D. Effect of glutamate antagonists effect on nitric oxide production in rat brain
following intrahippocampal injection, Arch Biol Sci. 2007; 59(1): 29-36, DOI: 10.2298/ABS0701029R
3

DOI: 10.2298/ABS150319031E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500031E#.VZd3ZssVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Effect of glutamate antagonists effect on nitric oxide
production in rat brain following intrahippocampal injection, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2007, Vol. 59,
Issue 1. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Radenovi L, Selakovi V.
Differential effects of NMDA and AMPA/kainate receptor antagonists on nitric oxide production in rat brain following
intrahippocampal injection. Brain Res Bull. 2005;67(1-2):133-41. The results presented in the article that is being retracted
overlap with the results presented in the original article without appropriate justification, permission or cross referencing. After
Retraction 7
Stanimirovi Z, Aleksi N, Kuli M, Maleti M. Fumagillin-induced chromosome aberrations in mouse bone-marrow cells,
Arch Biol Sci. 2010;62(1):47-55, DOI: 10.2298/ABS1001047S
DOI: 10.2298/ABS150320032E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500032E#.VZd5DMsVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0354-4664/2010/0354-46641001047S.pdf
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Fumagillin-induced chromosome aberrations in mouse
bone-marrow cells, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences in 2010, Vol. 62, Issue 1. The Editor-in-Chief has been
informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Kuli M, Aleksi N, Stanimirovi Z, Risti S, Medenica S. Examination
of genotoxic effects of fumagillin in vivo. Genetika. 2009; 41(3): 329-38. The results presented in the article that is being
retracted partially overlap with the results in the original article without appropriate justification, permission or
crossreferencing. Further, Figs. 1 and 2 in the retracted article also appear in: Stanimirovi Z, Stevanovi J, Kuli M, Stojic V.
Frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the evaluation of genotoxic potential of dicyclohexylamine (fumagillin) in vivo. Acta
Veterinaria. 2006; 56(4): 353-66. and in Stanimirovic Z, Stevanovic J, Bajic V, Radovic I. Evaluation of genotoxic effects of
fumagillin by cytogenetic tests in vivo. Mutat Res. 2007; 628(1): 1-10. These figures (in the retracted article) have been
subsequently tampered with and therefore present falsified results. After confirmation of this fact, the Editor-in-Chief of the
Archives of Biological Sciences has decided to retract the paper immediately. We apologize to the readers of the journal that it
took so many years to notice this error and to retract the paper. We request readers of the journal to directly get in touch with
the editorial office and the editors of the journal for similar cases in the future, so that they can be handled promptly.
Retraction 8
Radenovi L. Effect of 7-nitroindazole on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in the rat brain following
kainate-induced neurotoxicity. Arch biol sci, 2008, 60(1):25-32. DOI: 10.2298/ABS0801025R
DOI: 10.2298/ABS150330033E
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?id=0354-46641500033E#.VZd5oMsVjIU
Retraction notice:
Retracted paper:
Reason/explanation: This is a notice of retraction of the article: Effect of 7-nitroindazole on superoxide production and
MnSOD activity in the rat brain following kainate-induced neurotoxicity, published in the Archives of Biological Sciences
in 2008, Vol. 60, Issue 1. The Editor-in-Chief has been informed that this paper plagiarizes an earlier paper: Radenovic L,
Selakovic V, Kartelija G, Todorovic N, Nedeljkovic M. Differential effects of NMDA and AMPA/kainate receptor
antagonists on superoxide production and MnSOD activity in rat brain following intrahippocampal injection. Brain Res Bull,
2004, 64(1):85-93. The results in the article being retracted were presented as findings obtained from novel research.
Inspection of the results has revealed that they were part of research already presented in the original article without
appropriate justification or cross-referencing. The Editor-in-Chief considered publishing a notice of redundancy specifying
4
the elements published previously. However, since the original article had already been autoplagiarized by the same
corresponding author in the same journal (retraction DOI:10.2298/ABS150318026E), the article is being retracted in
accordance with the publishing ethics of the Archives of Biological Sciences in order to preserve the integrity of scientific
research. We apologize to the journals readers that it took so long to notice this error and instigate retraction of the paper.
We request our readers to contact the editorial office and editors of the journal directly should similar cases occur in the
future, so that the necessary action can be taken more promptly.
3. Summary and Implications

These eight retractions that appeared within a very short period of time suggest the following:
a) Post-publication peer review (PPPR) has taken place, either by independent parties, or by ABS itself.
b) The EIC and ABS are taking swift and decisive action against plagiarism and other forms of publishing lack of ethics.
c) The literature in ABS is being corrected, either through errata, corrigenda, or retractions.
d) The retraction notices are complete, clearly indicate the issues, and are well-publicized, not only linking the retraction notice
to the original manuscript page, but also assigning a DOI (digital object identifier) to both original and retracted articles.
e) Clear receptivity to reports from the public by the EIC, and willingness to address the issues promptly.
There are links to PubPeer for each of these papers (Appendix 3).
4. Quo Vadis?
The eight retractions registered recently at ABS reflect a positive start and the beginning of the delivery on promises made
one year ago. PPPR is currently the only viable solution to correcting the literature in the face of cronyism, academic
corruption, editorial inefficiencies and publisher bias [7]. A road-map has been set out in which comments, concerns and
criticism can be made either anonymously, or in person, using a limited number of currently reliable channels [8]. The onus
of correcting the literature lies squarely on the shoulders of the ABS editorial team, led by its EIC Dr. Poznanovi. Indeed,
support from the general scientific public is encouraged, but ultimately ABS cannot be seen to be leaning exclusively on the
voluntarily services provided by anonymous sleuths among the scientific community. ABS must provide concrete proof that
it is actively scanning all past papers, at least those that were published between 2005 and 2014 when Prof. Boidar uri
served as the EIC of ABS, for plagiarism, self-plagiarism and other cases of academic misconduct. In addition, specialists
from those fields of study are encouraged to reassess the scientific merit and to identify any academic flaws that might exist
in such papers, with the sole objective of correcting the literature. In particular, the paper by Prof. Boidar uri must
receive particular and special scrutiny. It is only once such an in-depth PPPR analysis of the ABS literature has taken place,
followed by errata, corrigenda and retractions, as appropriate, that the scientific community can regain trust in this journa l
and in Balkan science, which itself has somewhat of a crisis of trust [9], despite an apparent boom in publications in IF
journals [10]. Since the acceptance of this paper, a total of 16 retractions and two corrections will soon be published [11].
Appendix 1: DOAJ screenshot showing no publication charges
Appendix 1: screenshot of the entry of Archives of Biological Sciences in June 2014

5
Appendix 2: Guarantees of reform at ABS

On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:13 AM, Dr. Dusko Blagojevic and Dr. Goran Poznanovic wrote to me:
Dear Sir/Madam, In light of recent events involving the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS), Belgrade, at a meeting of the
Serbian Biological Society on 17 July, 2014, the resignations of the President/Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Dr. Bozidar Curcic and members
of the Editorial Board of the ABS were accepted. At the same meeting, the Society elected a new President and members of the
Governing Board, Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board of the ABS, as well as a new President of the Society. Members of the Serbian
Biological Society expressed their unanimous expectation that the newly elected individuals strictly adhere to their commitment to
uphold all the principles, ethical standards and good practice of scientific publishing. In the hope of your understanding and
continued support of the ABS, we remain, Yours sincerely,
Dr Dusko Blagojevic, President of the Governing Board of the ABS,
Dr. Goran Poznanovic, Editor-in-Chief, ABS
From http://serbiosoc.org.rs/arch/index.htm (on three separate web pages):
Publishing ethics
The Archives of Biological Sciences strives to ensure the accurate, timely, fair and ethical publication of a scientific paper.
Therefore, it has adopted clear and strict guidelines for all parties involved in publication of a scientific paper: the author, the
editor, the peer reviewers, and the publisher.
Authors' responsibilities
Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
Each author must disclose if another party had the right to review the paper prior to its circulation.
Reviewers' responsibilities
Reviewers should keep all information regarding articles confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or
other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the articles.
Editors' responsibilities
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the articles and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Editors should base their decisions solely one the articles' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts
to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Editors should not reject articles based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Publishers responisbilties
All submitted articles are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the
particular paper. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability
and language. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. If authors are encouraged to
6
revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not
be re-reviewed. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel,
copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Peer review process
The submitted papers are subject to a peer review process in order to select the publication of articles that meet the standards
of the Archives of Biological Sciences. The reviewers identities are not disclosed to the authors. When a manuscript is
submitted the Archives of Biological Sciences, it undergoes an initial prescreening by the Editor-in-Chief and appropriate
members of the Editorial Board in order to determine whether or not the paper fits the scope of the journal. If the Editorial
Board establishes that the manuscript meets the journals minimum standards for publication, the paper will then undergo the
review process. In the main review phase, the Editor-in-Chief sends the received papers to two experts in the field. The
reviewers evaluation form contains a checklist in order to help referees to cover all aspects that can decide the fate of the
publication. In the final section of the evaluation form, the reviewers must include observations and suggestions for
improvement that are sent to the authors, without the names of the reviewers. All the reviewers of a paper remain anonymous
to the authors and act independently before, during and after the evaluation process. They have different affiliation, are usually
located in different countries, and they are not aware of each others identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the
same (accept/reject), the paper is rejected.
Announcements
2015-06-12
Editorial Announcement In the summer of 2014, the Archives of Biological Sciences was singled out as a scientific journal that
had veered away from the ethical publishing practice of scientific journals and was placed on the list of predatory journals.
Members of the scientific public in Serbia directly affected by the accusations were mobilised, and after thorough investigation
it was concluded that many of these accusations were founded. As a result, the Serbian Biological Society and other
co-publishers of the journal replaced the entire editorial team. The new Editorial Board was confronted with the difficult task
of resolving many outstanding issues which primarily affected contributors and scientific research in life sciences, as well as
official bodies that support scientific publishing in Serbia. We are issuing this announcement in order to express our deep
regret to the scientific community for past mismanagement of scientific information. The new editorial team will continue to
correct all mistakes while striving to ensure accurate, timely, fair and ethical publication of scientific papers that the Archives
of Biological Sciences has been traditionally known for. We are calling all readers of the journal to directly contact the editorial
office and the editors of the journal regarding any case of publishing malpractice in the future, to ensure prompt remediation.
The new Editorial Board adheres to the Best Practice Guidelines in order to improve the overall quality of the Archives of
Biological Sciences and in this way hopes to regain the trust of previous and future contributors.
Editorial Board of the Archives of Biological Sciences
2014-09-01
On July 17, 2014 the Editor-in-Chief and the complete Editorial Board of the Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS) were
changed due to indications of misconduct and deviation from good scientific publishing practice. The mission statement of the
newly instated Editorial Board of the ABS is to reestablish and uphold the principle of best practice in scholarly publishing.
Hereby the new Editorial Board of the ABS informs authors that all manuscripts submitted before August 1, 2014 will be
reviewed, regardless of whether they were accepted for publication. The Editorial Board will only review papers that are within
the scope of the ABS and that have been presented according to the new guidelines for authors available on the ABS site. The
Editorial Board of the ABS deeply regrets any inconvenience this may have caused contributors.
Appendix 3: PubPeer entries for the eight retractions

Retraction 1
https://pubpeer.com/publications/58445AA810AA217CC29571D7F344ED
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2DA3A4EABF662775E717DD9D857A77
Retraction 2
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2DAC0A4F4ACEC57A3E94F10C5DCDBA
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BE80CF02236DB8AAFA69F2E6D9CE31
Retraction 3
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BBFA942444FBB9CAD42D7B2EFEA22E
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3B1FCB8827F0469E48780EE5A98804
Retraction 4
https://pubpeer.com/publications/9AD8634325DB4EF37A8BA44AED2B4D
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1577A22BF54AC24FA98642F4B74170
Retraction 5
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E56C868B1D7262D0AA89DBEF850D3A
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B2F60160694617D19F2B537C93349A
Retraction 6
https://pubpeer.com/publications/6EB1A1246F5AC3BAD3B734B17D67E6
https://pubpeer.com/publications/8643B27560E7DBC50FC7C960B2571F
Retraction 7
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1D8F5518FED96D71CBD1CEF1BB9009
https://pubpeer.com/publications/01984AE20EEE91019D275221532D61
Retraction 8
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BDC9437CC7E28179EE0B792001FE8A
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBEA787969FB053F8683E0A13BD55F
References
[1] http://serbiosoc.org.rs/arch/index.htm
[2] http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/06/12/serbian-journal-accepts-paper-in-24-hours-with-no-peer-review-demands-eur-1785/.
[3] http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/07/serbian-journal-lands-in-hot-water-after-challenge-on-24-hour-peer-review-that-co
st-1785-euros/.
[4] http://www.scilogs.com/balkan_science_beat/serbian-journal-archives-of-biological-sciences-under-investigation-followi
ng-accusation-of-predatory-practice/.
[5] http://ceon.rs/index.php/en/.
[6] http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/.
[7] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2015. Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information
Technology (Public Science Framework) 1(2): 34-37.
[8] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2015. A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences: cementing a road-worthy action plan. Journal of
Educational and Social Research 5(2): 15-21.
[9] http://ceon.rs/ops/12122.pdf.
[10] Ivanovi D, Ho YS. 2014. Independent publications from Serbia in the Science Citation Index Expanded: a bibliometric
analysis. Scientometrics 101: 603-622.
[11] http://retractionwatch.com/2015/08/06/serbian-journal-cleans-house-with-16-retractions-and-2-corrections-after-investiga
tion/

tmp5A8E TMP

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

tmp5A8E TMP

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Archives of Biological Sciences:

From Falling Star to Glimmer of Hope

1. Archives of Biological Sciences: The Fall from Grace

2. Eight Retractions at Archives of Biological Sciences: Summary and Significance

Archives of Biological Sciences, 2015 67(2):745-745

3. Summary and Implications

Appendix 1: DOAJ screenshot showing no publication charges

Appendix 1: screenshot of the entry of Archives of Biological Sciences in June 2014

Appendix 2: Guarantees of reform at ABS

Appendix 3: PubPeer entries for the eight retractions

También podría gustarte