Two Oxford journals have now put out three more retractions for ob-gyn and former University of Florida professor Nasser Chegini, who has been under ORI investigation since at least 2012. That makes a total of five retractions, by our count.
Here is the notice for “The expression profile of micro-RNA in endometrium and endometriosis and the influence of ovarian steroids on their expression” in Molecular Human Reproduction:
The University of Florida has provided Molecular Human Reproduction (MHR) with information regarding their investigation into manipulation and falsification of data by Nasser Chegini.
The Journal wishes to retract the above paper published in MHR due to falsification and/or fabrication of data in figures 2A, 2B,3,4 and 5. The information presented in these figures is central to the conclusions of the paper.
MHR apologises to its readers, although the Journal accepts no culpability in the publication of this data. No investigation, to our knowledge, has been initiated into the conduct of the co-authors.
The paper has been cited 139 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Here’s the notice for “CCNs, fibulin-1C and S100A4 expression in leiomyoma and myometrium: inverse association with TGF-β and regulation by TGF-β in leiomyoma and myometrial smooth muscle cells,” also in MHR and cited 20 times:
The University of Florida has provided Molecular Human Reproduction (MHR) with information regarding their investigation into manipulation and falsification of data by Nasser Chegini.
The Journal wishes to retract the above paper published in MHR due to falsification/fabrication of data in figures 1, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10. The information presented in these figures is central to the conclusions of the paper.
MHR apologises to its readers, although the Journal accepts no culpability in the publication of this data. No investigation, to our knowledge, has been initiated into the conduct of the co-authors.
And here’s the notice for “Doxycycline alters the expression of inflammatory and immune-related cytokines and chemokines in human endometrial cells: implications in irregular uterine bleeding” in Human Reproduction:
The Journal, as requested by The University of Florida, wishes to retract the above article. An investigation conducted by the Office of Research at the University of Florida found evidence that Nasser Chegini falsified and fabricated data in Figures 1 and 3. This incident of research misconduct alters the interpretation of data presented and the final conclusions drawn in the article.
Human Reproduction apologises to its readers, although the Journal accepts no culpability in the publication of this data.
That paper has been cited 16 times.
We’ve reached out to Oxford, and will update if we find out what exactly “accepts no culpability” means.
Translated: 139 citations of fraud. Well, we are truly in an admirable age! Where fraud is handsomely rewarded. So, I ask, why even bother to be honest any longer? We get harassed for being whistle-blowers, we get threatened legally and otherwise, we are unappreciated, we get old and stressed conducting PPPR freely, thinking that we can correct the literature, and yet, at the end of the day, Dr. Chegini still scores 139 citations. The system is absurd. For someone who struggles to publish papers that barely scrounge together a handful of citations, simply because the field of study is fairly narrow and limited by the number of individuals in the world who specilize in these topics, it twsists my gut to see fraud being indirectly rewarded in this way.
As for the the Kato case, my sense of indignation is level flat. The key question is, who is now going to contact the journals and publishers of the 139 citations to inform them that in fact that have now cited a non-existent paper? Will it be Dr. Chegini, Oxford University Press, or The University of Florida. Actually, I think it has to be all three.
Why bother…
While I do note the rhetorical nature of the question, it does cause me to stop and consider why we all still take the time to show up here.
Correcting the literature can be a perpetually disheartening task. However, if the pursuit of truth were to be abandoned and the intristically motivated researchers were to stop fighting, what would happen?
Would fame, prestige, and money threaten to keep producing ever increasing pockets of science that only deliver, at best, questionable findings to the public and, at worst, serve as political and corporate propaganda?
If the only alternative to insisting upon truth and transparency enables the current slap on the wrist system of fraud and evaluation, by means of arbitrary quantitative publishing records, to expand, then I find that there is no other option. It is the amalgamation, especially here at RW, of genuine scientists that strengthens my resolve.
The notoriety of these stories are not going unnoticed…
139 and counting – remember retracted papers still get cited. Bottom line is one cannot use IF or citations to measure anything useful about an individual’s work. it does, however, pay to read the papers of an applicant, though that has been going out of fashion.