What a report into scientific misconduct reveals: The case of Frank Sauer

Oct. 3, 2011, was the beginning of the end for Frank Sauer’s tenure at the University of California, Riverside. On that day, an anonymous emailer contacted Sauer’s institution with accusations that the biochemist had cooked his research in at least eight papers over a 16-year period. Sauer was found to have doctored images in studies … Continue reading What a report into scientific misconduct reveals: The case of Frank Sauer

Reports of misconduct investigations can tell us a lot. Here are more than a dozen of them.

Fakery. Ignored whistleblowers. Sabotage. Subterfuge. Reading reports of institutional investigations into allegations of misconduct can sometimes feel like reading a spy novel about science. And we’ve read a lot of them. In a recent post that drew from one such report, we wrote: Whenever we learn about misconduct cases at public universities, we file such … Continue reading Reports of misconduct investigations can tell us a lot. Here are more than a dozen of them.

Infamous case of fraud by protein crystallographer ends in 10-year funding ban

In 2009, a university announced a prominent researcher in the field of protein crystallography had likely fabricated nearly a dozen protein structures. Nine years later, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has upheld the results — and announced a relatively long sanction, by the agency’s standards. Today, the ORI placed a 10-year ban on … Continue reading Infamous case of fraud by protein crystallographer ends in 10-year funding ban

Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that over the past year or so, we have been making an effort to obtain and publish reports about institutional investigations into misconduct. That’s led to posts such as one about a case at the University of Colorado, Denver, one about the case of Frank Sauer, formerly of the … Continue reading Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Weekend reads: Predatory fraud; risky spreadsheets; how to report issues in a paper

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at publishing bounties around the world, and the story of how the “right to be forgotten” law had led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“An evolving and inconsistent tale:” Biochemist barred from federal grants for five years

In 2013, Frank Sauer blamed “visual distortion” for problems with the images in his papers and grant applications. That explanation gave way to the production in 2016 of a mysterious and ominous letter from an unnamed researcher claiming that they’d sabotaged Sauer’s work in a plot of revenge. Soon after, Sauer was claiming that a … Continue reading “An evolving and inconsistent tale:” Biochemist barred from federal grants for five years

Nature retracts epigenetics paper by author who lost two Science papers last year

Frank Sauer, formerly of the University of California, Riverside, has had a 2002 letter on epigenetics retracted from Nature due to “inappropriate image manipulation.” Sauer had two papers retracted from Science last year following a university investigation. Here’s the Nature notice for “Histone methylation by the Drosophila epigenetic transcriptional regulator Ash1:”

Science retracts two papers for image manipulation

Science has retracted two papers by Frank Sauer, of the University of California, Riverside, after the university found evidence of serious image manipulation. Here’s the notice, signed by Science editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt: