Marty Hinz, MD Retraction Home Page

Caused not by the authors
Publishing company errors caused the retractions

Since the retraction process started, there were no concerns or questions raised regarding the validity of the science or research findings reported with any of these papers.

After reading the second-hand non-sense posted on other websites (such as Quackwatch.com by Stephen Barrett and retractionwatch.com) that never interviewed the authors, medical school, or peer-reviewers to produce a balanced journalistic effort regarding the retraction of these papers, I needed to write this website.

We accurately assert that the retractions occurred because of publishing errors made by Dove Press along with Taylor and Francis. The publishing errors used to justify the retraction of twenty papers were the publishing company’s responsibility. Concerns used to retract the papers were not the responsibility of the University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, MN, Marty Hinz, MD, the ten other medical doctor authors, or the over thirty peer-reviewers that came together to produce these papers.

I am Marty Hinz, MD.

Yes, retraction of 20 peer-reviewed papers did occur. But retraction did not occur for the fabricated, self-serving reasons found on other websites. The most bizarre aspect of their claims is that one person (Marty Hinz, MD) was solely responsible for producing twenty papers while overlooking the truths covered on this website.

Dove Press, on its website, claimed two reasons for retraction:

1. Retraction claim #1: There was no Independent Review Board (IRB) certificate and IRB data on file with Dove Press.
• The truth is that the authors had an IRB certificate in hand before starting research and writing. Then, when a manuscript is submitted, the publishing company reviews the manuscript to determine if an IRB certificate is required, then requests submission of the IRB certificate when required. Here the publishing company never requested submission of the IRB certificate, and twenty papers were published with no IRB certificate on file with the publisher.
2. Retraction claim #2: The papers contained inadequate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure.
• The authors were good to go here. In 2014 Dove Press did a special investigation secondary to a Stephen Barrett (Quackwatch.com) complaint and determined there was no conflict of interest problems with any papers or authors. The only problem found was the accuracy and truthfulness of the complaint submitted by Stephen Barrett.

Marty Hinz, MD Retraction

In 2020, Taylor Francis (who had purchased Dove Press) retracted twenty peer-reviewed papers.

Marty Hinz, MD, was not the sole producer of these papers. Three groups came together to produce these papers between 2009 and 2014.

• The University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth
• Eleven licensed medical doctors
• Over 30 peer-reviewers certified the science found in the papers as valid

Marty Hinz, MD, was not the lead author on all papers. It was not the papers they were after. It was Marty Hinz, MD, thanks to false allegations by Stephen Barrett. All papers referencing Marty Hinz, MD, no matter the lead author that submitted the paper, were retracted if the name Marty Hinz, MD, was found in the paper.

For example, the lead author of the first paper retracted was the University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth research committee chairman. Marty Hinz, MD, being the third chair on the paper, prompted retraction. Next, are the websites such as retractionwatch.com expounding the Stephen Barrett fiction, which claims this paper was a Marty Hinz, MD retracted paper with no recognition of others that produced the paper. Stephen Barrett is a self-proclaimed writer. The problem is the man and his work are not balanced. Stephen Barrett takes no time to interview the people he produces fabricated writings about to ensure a balanced and accurate journalist effort.

ISSUES THE RETRACTIONS RESTED ON

1. Independent Review Board Certificate (IRB Certificate)
• Dove Press starting in 2009, published papers requiring an IRB Certificate without requesting or ensuring an IRB Certificate was in their corporate file.
• The authors did obtain an IRB certificate from the University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth research committee before starting research and writing. Still, Dove Press and Taylor Francis failed in their responsibility to request, obtain, and maintain this document required before publishing occurs. Instead, they published papers without requesting the IRB certificate of having it on file, then allowed many papers into the public realm for over ten years before waking up to the problems on their doorstep. Along with Taylor and Francis, Dove Press deflected their responsibility by allowing their problem to be portrayed solely as the responsibility of a single author, Marty Hinz, MD, secondary to the false, facbricated, second-hand hearsay content of complaints by Stephen Barrett. See the independent review board certificate webpage on this website.


2. Conflict of Interest Disclosure regarding Marty Hinz, MD Retraction Papers

   • In 2014, Stephen Barrett filed a vicious and fictitious complaint with Dove Press. The complaint triggered a high-level investigation into conflict of interest related to Marty Hinz, MD, by the owner and publisher of Dove Press, Tim Hill. Tim Hill and Dr. Zhou determined that the complaint had no merit; there were no problems with the conflict-of-interest disclosures claimed by Stephen Barrett as found in the twenty papers. The Dove Press, Tim Hill investigation, determined that the only problem with the complaint was the accuracy of Stephen Barrett’s (Quackwatch.com) claims filed.

1. • In 2018 Stephen Barrett filed another conflict of interest complaint with Dove Press which rehashed and falsely embellished the invalid concerns regarding conflict-of-interest disclosure previously investigated by Dove Press in 2014. See the conflict-of-interest disclosures webpage on this website for a discussion relating to the course of events secondary to the 2018 complaint.