Swedish rector Anders Hagfeldt pronounced innocent of papermilling

“The Research Misconduct Review Board (hereinafter the Board) decides that Anders Hagfeldt is not guilty of research misconduct”

NPOF on 1.09.2023 (Dnr: 3.2-22/0101)

The wrongfully accused Swedish victim of an international conspiracy is none other but the Rector (Vice-Chancellor) of the University Of Uppsala, Anders Hagfeldt. The national Research Misconduct Review Board (NPOF) decreed one of his papers with questionable co-authors to be badly fraudulent, but Hagfeldt was just too big to fall. Or even to be reprimanded for negligence. Hence, innocent.

Hagfeldt is actually professor at the EPFL Lausanne in Switzerland, and this is the affiliation he used on the problematic papers. Since January 2021, he is on official leave from EPFL in order to preside over the University of Uppsala as Vice-Chancellor. Hagfeldt sports an h-index of 160 and proudly declares to have “published more than 560 scientific papers that have received over 94,000 citations“. Now we know how he got to such numbers, but please be reminded that authoring papermilled forgeries is not research misconduct.

Which neatly fits the position from German national research integrity authorities, also on the topic of Iranian papermilling:

Now, onto the Hagfeldt papers and what NPOF decided. The investigation took place upon my notification of suspected research misconduct based on PubPeer findings made by my colleagues, this is also why I received from NPOF the full report (in Swedish), which is available here for download:

This nanotechnology study, listed as Article 1 in the NPOF report, appeared in an Elsevier journal with impact factor of 15, all authors (including the corresponding one) are based in China. Except the last author, Hagfeldt. The groundbreaking study of “highly efficient and cost-effective multifunctional electrocatalysts for advanced energy conversion technologies” was submitted on 29 November 2021 and published in January 2022, by then Hagfeldt was leading the University of Uppsala for a year.

Asim Arshad , Sining Yun , Jing Shi , Menglong Sun , Nosheen Zafar , Anders Hagfeldt N-coordinated bimetallic defect-rich nanocarbons as highly efficient electrocatalysts in advanced energy conversion applications Chemical Engineering Journal (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.134913

This paper is expected to be retracted now, as Hagfeldt announced in the NPOF report:

“After the errors were discovered, he tried to get access to the raw data from them author who worked on it, but he states that it has not been possible. He has therefore took the initiative to withdraw the article.”

The NPOF report informs us that the paper was rejected at another journal, and that the Figure 2c was created afterwards to satisfy the peer reviewers. Hagfeldt’s input is described as “gave feedback on that version” and that “he only performed a few tasks linked to the article after January 1, 2021.” Anyway, Hagfeldt “only intended to provide ideas and concept regarding the use of the carbon-based electrode with catalysts“. Meaning, he only deserved an acknowledgement, but basically admitted to have accepted a gift authorship. Which is a form of research misconduct.

Hagfeldt explained the collaboration (again, Google-translated from Swedish):

“Anders Hagfeldt describes that the research reported in the article 1 is interdisciplinary in nature and therefore requires research constellations within a range of specialist areas where each participant represents their own excellence. Individuals cannot master all specialties at the same time but the collaboration is based on the collective combined competence for the research task. He refers to the fact that it is stated in the article that the research was a collaboration between a constellation of researchers from different universities in China, under the leadership of the corresponding author, and EPFL, with himself as responsible. All material preparation, experimental characterizations and theoretical calculations was done in the laboratories of China with the corresponding author as research leader. An exception applies to the Raman measurements that were performed in Pakistan by a PhD student of the corresponding author.”

As usual, the student faked the figure, this time a naughty, yet wealthy foreign student with a $50k Raman spectrometer in his mum’s kitchen. A student who is not listed as the paper’s author. Student, meet bus.

Strange that in an interview published in September 2022 by the local newspaper UNT on the occasion of the NPOF investigation, Hagfeldt insisted to have been heavily involved in the project (translated):

“I have continued to keep in regular contact with my former colleagues as much as possible. […] We work together as one big heart in academic work.”

In any case, it is unclear how Hagfeldt can initiate the retraction of a paper to which he officially contributed nothing except some advice. Suddenly this minor non-contributor became the lead and corresponding author, or what?

But gosh, what happened to Figure 2B and 2C? Hagfeldt is clueless:

“Anders Hagfeldt states that he, and colleagues at Uppsala universities that he consulted, cannot explain the repetitive patterns that appear in the figure. He has tried to get clarity on what could be the cause and among otherwise contacted the manufacturer of the instrument used, who was unable to contribute with some explanation.”

Luckily NPOF engaged some experts!

Thomas Wågberg, head of the Department of physics at the Umeå University, knew very well what he was expected to decide:

“Thomas Wågberg […] indicates that there is a possibility that the repetitive signal in the figure has natural causes, caused by, for example, interference on a mirror or a filter of the spectrometer, handling baseline subtraction, or other things in the environment. His assessment is that there is no question of fabrication or falsification.”

Also Hagfeldt insisted that “there may be a natural explanation for the repetition in Figure 2c“, while Figure 2b must have been some mistake in “handling of the data“. The second expert, Anna Martinelli, professor at the Chalmers University of Technology in Göteborg, obviously did not get the memo, and just blurted out the truth:

“Anna Martinelli’s overall assessment is that the data presented in Figures 2b and 2c have been manipulated in some way and constitute a serious breach of good research practice.”

I am sure Wagberg’s career can only go up and up now, but Martinelli will have a lot of atonement to do. Because of her fraud findings, the NPOF had to accept the obvious:

“In summary, the board assesses that the data in figure 2b has either been invented, that is, fabricated, or has been altered without being justified, i.e. falsified. Since the raw data is not available, it is not possible to determine which of the deviations it is in question. […]

With regard to figure 2c, the committee assesses that the figure contains repeated patterns in the noise over broad spectral ranges unexplained in at least three of the four spectra presented. The experts and Anders Hagfeldt suggest different hypothetical explanations that this type of pattern could arise from natural reasons, but cannot find a reasonable explanation. […]

The Board finds that it is unlikely that the errors occurred as a result of hitherto unknown instrumental effects, but considers that the data in Figure 2c was either invented, i.e. made up, i.e. fabricated, or that the data has been altered without justification and thus thus containing falsification […]

The board’s conclusion is therefore that the deviations regarding figure 2b and 2c in article 1 constitute serious deviations from good research practice”.

Yet the last author Hagfeldt is entirely innocent of all of it. Not even a charge of negligence. Go out and put your name on papermilled forgeries, when caught – remind everyone that you contributed nothing but general feedback and have no idea anyway what the figures show. You need to reach a certain academic gravity to pull this off, I don’t advise PhD students to try.

It is quite strange. NPOF decided very differently in another case of nanotechnology fraud. The Linköping University professor Magnus Willander was also driven by the greed of gift authorships, had his name placed on fake papers by his faculty colleague Omer Nour, and got slapped with findings of research misconduct by the same NPOF. Maybe it matters that Willander has already retired.

Article 1 was only investigated by NPOF because Hagfeldt has been rector in Uppsala at the time of its submission. This is also why the Article 2, published before Hagfeldt came to Uppsala, was explicitly exempt from the investigation. NPOF was totally uninterested in finding out if that one was fake as well, and didn’t consider inviting EPFL to investigate. The study supplied “a crucial requirement for commercialization” for perovskite solar cell technology, among its international coauthors are three EPFL researchers: Hagfeldt, Wolfgang Tress and the EPFL bigwig Michael Grätzel (h-index 295). It also has repetitive patterns:

Don’t expect any editorial action here: that journal’s Editor-in-Chief is Georgia Tech professor Zhong Lin Wang, a hyper-prolific publisher of trash and former business partner of the Swedish scamference fraudster Ashutosh Tiwari. Incidentally, Hagfeldt is Editor-in-Chief of a Royal Society of Chemistry journal which recently published Tiwari’s paper. Small world.

There are two more papers by Hagfeldt with a bunch of known papermillers, which I also reported to NPOF but which will probably not be investigated, since Hagfeldt hasn’t contributed anything anyway, right?

Like this one, which Hagfeldt et al recently corrected, having originally reported an invention of a new “superiorly stable supercapacitor“. The paper reused data from a paper published approximately in parallel, about a SARS-CoV2 blood antibody nanosensor (same thing as a supercapacitor, probably?), with a similar set of authors but without Hagfeldt. Not just recycled: as Alexander Magazinov noted, one FTIR spectrum showed graphene oxide (GO) and the FTIR spectrum other showed activated graphene oxide, with different synthesis procedure and compounds used. The study was submitted for publication on 16 February 2021 (accepted 11 March 2021), i.e. when Hagfeldt was already rector in Uppsala.

Seyyed Alireza Hashemi , Seyyed Mojtaba Mousavi , Hamid Reza Naderi , Sonia Bahrani , Mohammad Arjmand, Anders Hagfeldt, Wei-Hung Chiang , Seeram Ramakrishna Reinforced polypyrrole with 2D graphene flakes decorated with interconnected nickel-tungsten metal oxide complex toward superiorly stable supercapacitor Chemical Engineering Journal (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.129396 

There was more data recycling, with yet another Hasemi et al 2021 paper (similar authors, but no Hagfeldt), about yet a different kind of graphene-based coronavirus and flu virus nanodetector:

The Corrigendum appeared on 15 August 2023:

“The authors regret to inform that the FTIR spectrum in Fig. 1(a) (I) does not accurately represent the graphene oxide (GO) used in this research. This discrepancy occurred because of an error in archiving the obtained data. Hence, this report presents the corrections applied to the FTIR and its respective explanations. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.”

See, Hagfeldt already did all the work for NPOF and solved the case.

Now, this may or may not bother NPOF and University of Uppsala, but the last author of this corrected papermill fabrication is the Cambridge- and Harvard-trained Singapore professor Seeram Ramakrishna, who is a notorious papermill cheater (see his PubPeer record), which ironically fits his position as “Chair of the Circular Economy Taskforce”. Ramakrishna and his ilk use research funds to buy fake science from papermills, then use those papermilled fabrications to obtain more public money to buy another set of papermilled fraud, all while controlling this circular economy from the inside as editors and reviewers. Another co-author of Hagfeld’s paper is also a circular economist, a certain Iran-born Canadian professor Mohammad Arjmand. Read about him here:

Here is another valuable contribution to graphene research by Hagfeldt, Ramakrishna, Arjmand and other Iranian papermill customers, this time the team invented a graphene-based thingy for blood sugar measurements for diabetics. It was submitted on 20 January 2021 and accepted 22 April 2021, i.e. after Hagfeldt became Uppsala rector, and I am sure it can be also fixed with a future Corrigendum, if needed:

Seyyed Alireza Hashemi , Seyyed Mojtaba Mousavi , Sonia Bahrani , Navid Omidifar, Mohammad Arjmand, Seeram Ramakrishna, Anders Hagfeldt, Kamran Bagheri Lankarani , Wei-Hung Chiang Decorated graphene oxide flakes with integrated complex of 8-hydroxyquinoline/NiO toward accurate detection of glucose at physiological conditions Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2021.115303 

The yet another Hashemi et al 2021 paper, which recycled the above data, did not have Hagfeldt as co-author because it was about detecting alcohol in blood. Draw your own explanations. In any case, there is no need for an NPOF investigation. Since the two papers above are most obviously fabricated by some Iranian papermills, it can be taken as proven that Prof Hagfeldt hasn’t contributed anything to them, except his name as co-author. And putting your name on fraudulent research papers is NOT research misconduct in Sweden (or, to be fair, anywhere else), except when you are the actual whistleblower. As it happened to the whistleblowers at Karolinska Institutet in the Paolo Macchiarini affair:

Worth noting that Hagfeldt is listed as the Chairman of the Expert Group for Ethics Questions of the Sweden’s University and College Association (SUHF), for the period January 2023 – December 2024. The tasks of this rather recently assembled Expert Group are described as such (Google-translated):

• create an arena for a nuanced conversation about mistakes, errors and cheating as well as how we create conditions for taking responsibility in helping each other do the right thing and evaluate whether it is appropriate to produce supporting material for this
• have a joint discussion about how we deal with allegations of misconduct or proven misconduct at our institutions of higher education, in the short and long term
• follow the work of the Board for Investigation of Misconduct in Research (NPOF) and analyze the consequences of the system. This also includes the universities’ own handling of violations of good research practice that fall outside the concept of misconduct follow the work of the Ethical Review Authority (EPN) and the Ethics Appeals Board (ÖNEP) and take inventory of how universities handle issues such as compliance with the Ethics Review Act, consent, training and information regarding research ethics and identify practices
• conduct dialogue with external actors, who manage preventive work as well as consequences of misconduct investigations and proven misconduct, such as research funders
• monitor investigations in the area
• ensure that sector-wide work is done on disciplinary matters
• consider the appropriateness of making and revising recommendations.

Must be Swedish humour, to put Hagfeldt in charge of setting the whitewashing guidelines.

And what about EPFL? Hagfeldt only used the EPFL affiliation on all of those problematic papers, will EPFL investigate them?

Fat chance. This is Switzerland, there are no central research integrity authority, and universities always declare their loyal researchers as innocent victims of persecution.

Here a paper by the former EPFL president Patrick Aebischer, who used to lead the university for 16 years since 2000:

Anurag Singh , Davide D’Amico, Pénélope A. Andreux , Andréane M. Fouassier , William Blanco-Bose , Mal Evans , Patrick Aebischer , Johan Auwerx, Chris Rinsch Urolithin A improves muscle strength, exercise performance, and biomarkers of mitochondrial health in a randomized trial in middle-aged adults Cell Reports Medicine (2022) doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100633 

There seem to be further irregularities with this clinical trial listed on PubPeer, and the first author seems to have admitted some of them. Some issues remain unaddressed, e.g., “The paper does report that patient analysis consents for biopsies were n=59, but a total of n=74 patients were used for PP analyses.”
I think the main problem is that Aebischer recruited Johan Auwerx to EPFL, and even publishes papers with him, despite because of Auwerx’s fat PubPeer record of almost 30 papers (I briefly wrote about them here).

So no, EPFL will not investigate Hagfeldt’s papers with Asian papermillers.

---

Update 13.09.2023

In an email, NPOF informed me that Hagfeldt was at least criticised:

“...the Board finds that the figures are fabricated or falsified. The Board finds this to be a serious breach of good scientific practice. Anders Hagfeldt is found to have acted in a negligent way, but not with gross negligence. To find someone guilty of research misconduct according to Swedish law the deviation has to have been committed with intent or gross negligence.“

I asked them to point out where exactly this is stated in the report. Also NPOF decided not to investigate the two papermilled works by Hagfeldt, Ramakrishna and Arjmand:

“The articles […] that you reported in June to the University of Uppsala have been reported by the university to us. But, please note that we only investigate fabrication, falsification and plagiarism in those articles as mentioned above.”

I lodged an appeal.

---

Update 16.04.2024

Hagfeldt’s papermilling will never be investigated by anyone. On 15 February 2024, the University of Uppsala sent me their official decision:

“Since no co-authors affiliated with a Swedish research entity have authored the articles in question, the report will not be investigated at Uppsala University or by the National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct.”

I asked if they will contact EPFL with a request to investigate. On 21 February 2024, Uppsala University’s Legal Officer Frida Ringholm informed me:

“It was decided that no further action would be taken with regard to the complaint. Uppsala University has not contacted EPFL, Switzerland.”

The NPOF registrar wrote to me:

“This is a matter of legal jurisdiction. If the research was carried out in another country, you can report the case to the authorities in that country.”

Right away, I did what Uppsala University refuses to do and lodged a notification of suspected research misconduct with EPFL, only to be informed by the Provost that “Professor Hagfeldt has left EPFL in 2020“. On 29 February 2024, EPFL Scientific Ombudsperson Winship Herr wrote to me:

“As noted by EPFL Provost Jan S. Hesthaven, Prof. Hagfelt is no longer an employee of EPFL.  EPFL employment is one of the admissibility criteria for investigating scientific misconduct complaints.
I am therefore unable to respond favorably to your report concerning any possible scientific misconduct by Prof. Hagfelt.
I wish you every success in your future endeavors.“

That’s it. Circle is closed.

---