Marty Hinz, MD Retraction
Medical School IRB Concerns
In 2020, Taylor Francis (who purchased Dove Press) retracted twenty peer-reviewed papers involving Marty Hinz, MD, based on an alleged IRB issue and conflict of interest disclosure concerns. Dove Press did not remove these papers due to poorly conducted research; instead, their website states, “The authors did not provide the required Independent Review Board (IRB) and informed consent information relating to this study.” However, the authors had obtained valid IRB certificate from the University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth research committee before starting research. In addition, the informed consent issue was investigated in 2014. The Dove Press publisher, Tim Hill, in 2014 found that the Stephen Barrett (QuackWatch) complaint of 2014 was not valid and lacked accuracy.
Four groups came together to produce these papers between 2009 and 2014.
- Dove Press
- The University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth
- Eleven licensed medical doctors
- Over 30 peer-reviewers certified the science found in the papers as valid
With the reading of Stephen Barrett’s complaint, the only party mentioned as responsible for producing these papers is Marty Hinz, MD. The problem was that Hinz was not the lead author on all papers. As a result of the false allegations by Stephen Barrett, it is obvious that it was not the papers Stephen Barrett sought to discredit; it was Marty Hinz, MD. This was not the first time Barrett had attempted to discredit Dr. Hinz. He has filed many complaints with private groups and as well as federal and state organizations. Numerous complaints were found to be not valid and lack merit.
Marty Hinz, MD Retraction Response regarding the IRB issues
Production of these papers occurred under the University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth, MN, independent review board (IRB). Therefore, the lead author of the first paper was the Chairman of the medical school research committee. He obtained the IRB Certificate before starting the research and submitting the first paper.
The authors were fully compliant with submitting any requested paperwork before publication. Dove Press’s responsibility was to review and, when appropriate, request then maintain required documents, including IRB certificates. For a second time in 2018, Barrett has boasted on his website that he was using his name recognition to cast dispersion on this research. In the end, the research stood. The fact is Stephen Barrett could not directly discredit the science found in these twenty papers produced by the University of Minnesota Medical School in Duluth, 11 medical doctors, and over 30 peer-reviewers. Instead, they focused on a technicality they created; more than ten years after the first publication, they claimed that the publication files were incomplete with no IRB certificate, which was the responsibility of the publisher’s files.
In 2020, the publisher requested an IRB certificate to cover the corporate problem of not having it on file for many papers more than ten years old. The Chairman of the medical school research committee held the IRB certificate. Unfortunately, he was on sabbatical leave secondary to medical problems. Therefore, we could not find him. Finally, two days before the short and arbitrary deadline set by Taylor Francis (who had purchased Dove Press), the Chairman materialized then sent the IRB Certificate. In response, the publisher claimed it required more documents relating to the IRB certificate even though an exempt category 4 certificate had been issued. In doing this, Taylor Francis refused to extend document production time, and retraction of the papers occurred. Dove Press has posted on its website that the status of the IRB certificate was a cause for retraction. The real cause of the IRB certificate problem was the responsibility of Dove Press, which did not bother to collect the IRB certificate before publishing. So who deserves to take the heat from this IRB certificate publishing event? Francis Taylor and Dove Press deserve the heat for attempting to sweep their wrongdoings under the carpet secondary to wrongly publishing papers with no IRB certificate on file.
Even though record maintenance was their responsibility as a publisher, their actions have had no impact on Francis Taylor and Dove Press so far. Still, they have greatly dragged this research and Dr. Hinz’s name through the mud that they created.
