The rector of the University of Salamanca, Juan Manuel Corchado, published this Monday a report entitled “In response to guarantee my rights” on the occasion of defend his “personal honor” and the “prestige” of the University of Salamanca. A vast document of 55 pages through which he decided to “take the initiative” and protect himself, refuting the complaints presented by the Research Ethics Committee (CEEI) and by researchers at the University of Granada .
In the document, to which the Ical Agency had access, he emphasizes that “if we were really worried about self-citations, it would be right to carry out a thorough and exhaustive review of the entire Spanish university system, instead of using me as a scapegoat.” Furthermore, he understands that there is a “campaign that responds more to the interests of others than to safeguarding the progress of science” and adds that the “attacks” received always come from the same sourceslinked to each other, and which use “privileged information taken out of context”.
Through this letter, he also asks that “the right to university autonomy be respected” and reiterates that none of the acts attributed to him “can be considered criminal”. He further emphasizes that “attempts to discredit” will not affect his work as rector of Usal. “I am committed to making our university an even greater institution, promoting major projects that reflect the excellence and tradition we already have,” says Corchado, and reaffirms that “the University of Salamanca deserves ambition and future. We already have the tradition.
In the conclusions, the rector of Usal believes he is “the subject of a smear campaign” “A system motivated by personal interests” and not by a “real concern for scientific ethics”. Corchado admits to observing “a clear pattern of media manipulation” that coincides with key moments of his candidacy and the first months of his mandate, which reinforces his belief that it is part of a “well-orchestrated strategy to discredit me and force my departure.”, reflected. A campaign which, he claims, reached the international media “in order to damage my image on a global scale”.
In addition, he defends the Governing Council of Usal, the body before which he presented the said report, for having respected the recommendation of the CEEI to carry out an external and independent investigation coordinated by Salvador Rus Rufino. The rector specifies that he was the victim of “serious crimes”, in particular identity theft in academic networks and publications, and 25 articles which fraudulently included his name without his knowledge were eliminated.
Faced with accusations of alleged bad practices, the rector claims to have carried out revisions with his publications team, reporting editing errors to the Springer publishing house, while the publisher decided to eliminate certain articles “without give clear explanations”, which he considers “an arbitrary decision. Corchado also underlines. a relationship between journalists who echoed reports that questioned their impartiality and the University of Granadain addition to the Ethics Committee.
The ethics committee, “questionable”
Faced with the accusations of the Ethics Commission, Juan Manuel Corchado comments that they “created for him a situation of helplessness since he had no possibility of contradiction”. Thus, he accuses the CEEI of acting as an instructing body by first commissioning a report on its scientific activity from researchers at the University of Granada, then by doing the same at the University of Salamanca. publishing the first even though that of his University did not respond “to his own convictions”. Actions that she considers “questionable” and which could go against the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA).
The report also reflects a “an undeniable bias” » from certain members of the Commission, referring specifically to the president, Jordi Camí, whose remarks, according to him, “seriously compromised the objectivity expected in an institution of this nature”.
Juan Manuel Corchado concludes the document to defend his honor with a long section, composed of 22 points, in reference to the report of researchers from the University of Granada. Regarding it, he declares that “it presents serious shortcomings which invalidate it as an instrument for impartial evaluation of my scientific production and alleged bad practices”, in addition to “many inaccuracies and biases” based on a “partial and manipulated evaluation”.
Furthermore, he adds that accusations of poor scientific practices “have no solid basis” because they are based on “non-objective methodology and errors in the data presented”, and which is based on information from Retraction Watch, a source which questions the reliability of Google Scholar for measuring scientific impact, “which contradicts the Committee’s methodology”, explains- he.
Corchado also accuses the authors of the report of exhibit similar behavior regarding self-citations in his publications, “reaching high percentages, even one hundred percent,” he says. To this, he adds that biometric methodologies “differ significantly” from those used by recognized institutions like ANECA, which would invalidate accusations of “bad practices”, and once again affects the contact between the authors of the report with the journalists. well before the publication of the document.
“One of the fundamental errors of the report is the constant confusion between different types of academic documents and scientific articles,” continues the rector of the University of Salamanca, who specifies that his new public profile on Google Scholar is incomplete “and is not legitimate. .” by not having a verified email address and presenting an unknown affiliation.
Regarding his publication figures, Corchado explains that “he does not distinguish between scientific publications and other non-scientific documents”, which he called a “notable error”, and criticizes the fact that the authors use a variety of databases among which they do not There is the criterion accepted by organizations such as Aneca to use “strictly scientific” databases, such as Scopus.
The authors of the report from the University of Granada also mentioned “scientific hyperproductivity”, without considering, according to the rector, “essential” factors such as the number of projects in which it participates or the number of co-authors on publications . Concerning the conferences, Corchado refutes the idea that those organized by his team “hide” a mega-conference, and denounces that the report “seems to intentionally confuse publication in conference proceedings with publication in scientific journals.”
