Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Search Results

NIH section chief with 19 retractions is no longer running a lab

without comments

Stanley Rapoport.
Source: NIH

A former section chief at the National Institutes of Health who has had 19 papers retracted is no longer running a lab, Retraction Watch has learned.

In the last three years, Stanley Rapoport, who is based at the U.S. National Institute on Aging (NIA), has lost 19 papers due to the misconduct of three different co-authors—Jagadeesh Rao, Fei Gao and Mireille Basselin.

And now, Rapoport, who was chief of the brain physiology and metabolism section of the NIA, no longer runs a lab.

According to a spokesperson at the NIA: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Victoria Stern

July 24th, 2017 at 11:00 am

NIH neuroscientist up to 19 retractions

with 5 comments

Stanley Rapoport.
Source: NIH

The string of apparent bad luck continues for Stanley Rapoport.

Rapoport, a neuroscientist based at the U.S. National Institute on Aging, has lost three more papers in three journals due to the misconduct of his co-authors. By our count, these retractions bring his tally to 19 — and tie him for 21st place on our leaderboard.

The journals—Schizophrenia Research, Journal of Affective Disorders, and Biological Psychiatry— retracted the papers because the National Institutes of Health had found that one of Rapoport’s co-authors, Jagadeesh Rao, had “engaged in research misconduct by falsifying data.” Rao was corresponding author on all three papers.

According to a spokesperson for Elsevier, which publishes the journals, the Schizophrenia Research paper was retracted in July, the JAD paper in late May and the Biological Psychiatry paper in late April. The spokesperson told us that the publisher first received an email from the NIH about the misconduct findings on September 20, 2016, and that: Read the rest of this entry »

NIH neuroscientist up to 16 retractions

with 11 comments

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Neuroscientist Stanley Rapoport just can’t catch a break.

Rapoport, who’s based at National Institute on Aging, is continuing to experience fallout from his research collaborations, after multiple co-authors have been found to have committed misconduct.

Most recently, Rapoport has had four papers retracted in three journals, citing falsified data in a range of figures. Although the notices do not specify how the data falsification occurred, Jagadeesh Rao, who was recently found guilty of research misconduct, is corresponding author on all four papers.

Back in December, Rapoport told us that a “number of retractions [for] Rao are still in the works:” Read the rest of this entry »

Prominent NIH researcher up to a dozen retractions

with 10 comments

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Neuroscientist Stanley Rapoport hasn’t had much luck with his co-authors.

Recently, we’ve reported on multiple retractions of papers co-authored by Rapoport after three different first authors were found to have committed misconduct. Now, the fallout from one of those cases had led to four more retractions, bringing Rapoport’s total to 12.

The latest batch of retractions stem from the actions of Jagadeesh Rao.

Here’s the first notice, issued by Psychopharmacology:

Read the rest of this entry »

More co-author misconduct raises NIH neuroscientist’s retraction count to 8

with 8 comments

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Not again.

That’s the sound of learning that a third scientist you worked with committed misconduct.

In the last two years, we reported on two retractions for neuroscientist Stanley Rapoport, the result of misconduct by two different first authors. We’ve since discovered more retractions resulting from those cases — and a new retraction stemming from the actions of yet another co-author.  

Although the latest retraction notice doesn’t reveal the reason for retraction, both the journal editor and Rapoport — based at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — confirmed to us that it is the result of misconduct by the last author, Jagadeesh Rao. According to Rapoport, a “number of retractions [for] Rao are still in the works.”

We asked Rapoport for his reaction to multiple cases of misconduct by his colleagues, including the two first authors we’ve already reported on, Fei Gao and Mireille Basselin:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Retraction Watch Leaderboard

with 21 comments

Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light:

  1. Yoshitaka Fujii (total retractions: 183) Sources: Final report of investigating committee, our reporting
  2. Joachim Boldt (96) Sources: Editors in chief statement, additional coverage
  3. Diederik Stapel (58) Source: Our cataloging
  4. Adrian Maxim (48) Source: IEEE database
  5. Peter Chen (Chen-Yuan Chen) (43) Source: SAGE, our cataloging
  6. Hua Zhong (41) Source: Journal
  7. Shigeaki Kato (39) Source: Our cataloging
  8. James Hunton (37) Source: Our cataloging
  9. Hendrik Schön (36) Sources: PubMed and Thomson Scientific
  10. Hyung-In Moon (35) Source: Our cataloging
  11. Naoki Mori (32) Source: PubMed, our cataloging
  12. Tao Liu: (29) Source: Journal
  13. Cheng-Wu Chen (28) Source: our cataloging
  14. Gideon Goldstein (26)
  15. Scott Reuben (25)
  16. Gilson Khang (22) Sources: WebCitation.org, WebCitation.org, journal
  17. Friedhelm Herrmann (21)
  18. Noel Chia (21)
  19. Dipak Das (20) Click here for a full list of retracted papers
  20. Khalid Zaman (20)
  21. Jin Cheng (19)
  22. Stanley Rapoport (19)
  23. Bharat Aggarwal (18)
  24. Fazlul Sarkar (18)
  25. John Darsee (17)
  26. Wataru Matsuyama (17)
  27. Alirio Melendez (17)
  28. Robert Slutsky (17)
  29. Yoshihiro Sato (17)
  30. Ulrich Lichtenthaler (16)
  31. Erin Potts-Kant (16)

We note that all but one of the top 31 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to commit fraud.

Notes:

Many accounts of the John Darsee story cite 80-plus retractions, which would place him third on the list, but Web of Science only lists 17, three of which are categorized as corrections. That’s not the only discrepancy. For example, Fujii has 138 retractions listed in Web of Science, compared to 183 as recommended by a university committee, while Reuben has 25, compared to the 22 named in this paper. We know that not everything ends up in Web of Science — Chen, for example, isn’t there at all — so we’ve used our judgment based on covering these cases to arrive at the highest numbers we could verify.

Shigeaki Kato is likely to end up with 43 retractions, based on the results of a university investigation.

All of this is a good reminder why the database we’re building with the generous support of the MacArthur Foundation and Arnold Foundation will be useful.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

Written by Ivan Oransky

June 16th, 2015 at 11:09 am

Posted in

NIH neuroscientist loses second paper, again the result of first author misconduct

with 5 comments

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Stanley Rapoport, a neuroscientist in the National Institute on Aging, isn’t having a lot of luck with his first authors. One committed misconduct and cost him a paper in the journal Age last year, and now he’s lost another paper with a different first author, but for the exact same reason.

The latest paper, in Neurochemical Research, examined whether chronic doses of aspirin reduce brain inflammation. It has been cited 14 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s more from the note: Read the rest of this entry »

NIH/Harvard team loses aging study to manipulated data

with 14 comments

agecoverAge has retracted a 2012 article by a group of scientists from the National Institutes of Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston after an NIH inquiry turned up evidence of data manipulation in the work.

The article, “Aging decreases rate of docosahexaenoic acid synthesis-secretion from circulating unesterified α-linolenic acid by rat liver,” came from the lab of Stanley Rapoport, chief of the brain physiology and metabolism section of the National Institute on Aging.

As the abstract explained: Read the rest of this entry »