Professor’s Technobabble Papers Face Scrutiny, Says Retraction Watch
Recent scrutiny has emerged surrounding the scientific output of Eren Öğüt, an associate professor at Istanbul Medeniyet University. Concerns about the legitimacy of his research papers, particularly those published in prestigious journals, have gained attention from peers and editorial staff alike.
Reviewer Concerns About Manuscript Quality
A neuroscientist reviewer from Germany raised significant doubts regarding one of Öğüt’s manuscripts submitted to Springer Nature’s *Brain Topography*. The study aimed to analyze the indusium griseum, a layer of gray matter in the brain. However, the reviewer found the content lacking substance and coherence. Figures in the manuscript were puzzling, and associated MATLAB functions seemed irrelevant. Additionally, the clarity of publicly available MRI data was questioned regarding its ability to visualize the targeted anatomical structure.
Following this, another colleague conducted a review of a different paper by Öğüt. Even with updated MATLAB functions, concerns persisted, as depicted figures appeared simplistic and detached from the expected anatomical representation. The second reviewer expressed skepticism, referring to the text as “technobabble,” indicative of an AI’s potential involvement in its creation.
Surge in Publications
In a striking revelation, Öğüt published 25 papers in 2025 alone, with twelve being single-authored. He also demonstrated significant activity in peer review, with nearly 650 papers reviewed that same year, raising alarms among his peers about the feasibility of such a workload. Notably, the average length of his reviews aligned suspiciously with overall averages across 11 million reviews, suggesting possible automation in content production.
Investigations and Defenses
Öğüt defended his productivity by asserting that many publications were years in the making. He claimed that the simultaneous publication of completed works was purely coincidental. Moreover, he acknowledged using AI tools for editing, similar to practices employed by many researchers. Following inquiries about his research, however, profiles associated with him on Google Scholar and other academic platforms disappeared.
- Number of publications in 2025: 25
- Single-authored papers: 12
- Papers reviewed: 650
In December, concerns were officially shared with John Van Horn, editor of *Neuroinformatics*. Reviewers highlighted striking similarities in content and style across Öğüt’s single-authored works, noting issues such as redundant figures and irrelevant MATLAB functions. One specific title mentioned, “Integrated 3D Modeling and Functional Simulation of the Human Amygdala,” purported to use a method named elastic shape analysis. However, discrepancies arose when key numerical findings claimed in Öğüt’s paper could not be traced back to the original source material it referenced.
Questions of Integrity
Experts have voiced serious doubts about the methodology and clarity of Öğüt’s studies. Anuj Srivastava, who developed the original elastic shape analysis method, described Öğüt’s paper as substandard and noted a lack of methodological rigor. Jennifer S. Stevens, another co-author of the original work, echoed concerns about the incomprehensibility of the results presented.
The investigation into Öğüt’s academic output is ongoing. Springer Nature’s Research Integrity Group is examining his submissions following reports of irregularities. The research community remains vigilant as this case unfolds, emphasizing the importance of maintaining integrity within scientific literature.
