Journal pulls paper from Ethiopia for unlicensed use of questionnaire

A public-health journal has retracted a study from Ethiopia that made unlicensed use of a questionnaire developed by a U.S. researcher known to aggressively protect his intellectual property.

This time, he didn't have to: The journal's publisher flagged the copyright infringement itself, Renee Hoch, managing editor at PLOS Publication Ethics, told Retraction Watch:

PLOS Global Public Health decided to retract the article because the authors did not have a license to use the MMAS-8 scale and the MMAS-8 data were essential in supporting the article's conclusions. This decision is supported by the PLOS Licenses and Copyright policy and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

The study found that people with diabetes who had a glucometer at home were more likely to take their medicine as prescribed. It has been cited three times since it was published last year, according to Clarivate's Web of Science, including once by a paper in PLOS ONE by the same group.

The Morisky Medication Adherence Scales (MMAS)-8 survey used in the study was first described in a 2008 publication by Donald Morisky of the University of California, Los Angeles. Since then, Morisky has demanded steep payments from hundreds of researchers using the questionnaire, causing some who couldn't pay to retract their work, as we reported in 2017 in partnership with Science.

Morisky registered the copyright for the MMAS-8 scale in 2018 and trademarked it the following year. Philip Morisky, managing partner of Donald Morisky, told us:

I am not familiar with the article in question. Copyright exists automatically in an original work of authorship once it is fixed, but a copyright owner can take steps to enhance the protections.

He did not comment on the chilling effect such steps could have on public-health research, particularly in poorer countries. But Hoch said:

As an Open Access publisher, we regret that license fees and other restrictions can create barriers to utilization of resources such as the MMAS-8, thereby creating inequities within the research community and impeding the advancement of research. Nevertheless, work published in PLOS must meet all applicable ethical and legal requirements, and we will take editorial action as needed if authors did not have requisite permissions or licenses for use of a third party resource.

Hoch added:

Of note, this type of issue can arise due to honest error if researchers are unaware of the applicable license requirements.

Neither the corresponding author nor the second author of the paper responded to our requests for comment.

In its May 10 retraction notice for the study, titled "Medication adherence and its associated factors among type 2 diabetic patients in Ethiopian General Hospital, 2019: Institutional based cross-sectional study," the journal states that the issue regarding permission to use the questionnaire could not be resolved during discussions with the authors, adding:

Considering the nature of the concerns in this case, the article contents were removed from the journal's website at the time of retraction.

The authors did not reply or could not be reached to comment on the retraction decision.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that's not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].