That’s a Mori! Seven more retractions brings latest count to 30
The International Journal of Cancer has retracted seven more articles by the disgraced Japanese researcher, all for the same reasons:
The following article has been retracted through agreement between the first author and several coauthors, the journal Editor in-Chief, Peter Lichter, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. … After an investigation the retraction has been agreed due to inappropriate duplication of images and overlap with other published work.
The papers are as follows:
- “Transactivation of the CCL5/RANTES gene by Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 1,” published online in December 2004 (cited 25 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge)
- “Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) inhibits constitutive activeNFkappaB, leading to suppression of cell growth of human T-cell leukemia virus type I-infected T-cell lines and primary adult T-cell leukemia cells,” published online in August 2005 (cited 44 times).
- “Transactivation of the ICAM-1 gene by CD30 in Hodgkin’s lymphoma,” published online in September 2005 (cited twice).
- “Inhibition of heat shock protein-90 modulates multiple functions required for survival of human T-cell leukemia virus type I-infected T-cell lines and adult T-cell leukemia cells,” published online in January 2007 (cited 12 times).
- “A modified version of galectin-9 suppresses cell growth and induces apoptosis of human T-cell leukemia virus type I-infected T-cell lines,” published online in February 2007 (cited 16 times).
- “Overexpression of Aurora A by loss of CHFR gene expression increases the growth and survival of HTLV-1-infected T cells through enhanced NF-kappaB activity,” published online in January 2009 (cited 5 times).
- “Aurora kinase inhibitor AZD1152 negatively affects the growth and survival of HTLV-1-infected T lymphocytes in vitro,” published online in January 2010 (cited twice).
What’s striking about some of these papers is how close their publication dates are. Two were published a month apart in both 2005 and 2007, which means they must have been under review either simultaneously or very nearly so.
We can certainly see how a duplicate image might slip through the cracks in papers submitted and published years apart. But it’s a little harder to understand how it could happen in a matter of a few weeks.
Hat tip: Commenter John Smith