Bone anatomists have retracted two papers on primate jawbone structure from the Journal of Anatomy due to “errors in the validation protocol and data,” marking the fourth retraction for one of the authors.
Olga Panagiotopoulou retracted two other papers over the past year, all of which were due to a common methodological problem. As Panagiotopoulou — who completed the work in the UK, before joining the University of Queensland in Australia in 2013 — explained to us in April,
The same methodology has been used in 4 papers and thus we had to proceed with a series of retractions this year which was unfortunate, but the right thing to do.
One of the currently retracted papers — “The mechanical function of the periodontal ligament in the macaque mandible: a validation and sensitivity study using finite element analysis” — was subject to an expression of concern in November 2013, while the other — “Balancing the spatial demands of the developing dentition with the mechanical demands of the catarrhine mandibular symphysis” — was hit by a correction in December 2013 that affected the data in two figures and two tables. The first paper has been cited 26 times, and the second 13 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The two retraction notices (1, 2) are essentially identical, save for the citation details of each paper. Each notice says that the article – and its associated Expression of Concern or Corrigendum, respectively:
…has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the Journal’s co-Editors-in-Chief Julia Clarke, Thomas Gillingwater, Anthony Graham and Stefan Milz, the Anatomical Society and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The action has been agreed due to the fact that there are errors in the validation protocol and data, and the finite element analysis data and results.
Julia Clarke, an editor of the journal, declined to add anything further to the notice.
We feel the information in the retractions presents a pretty complete picture and have nothing we would like to add.
Sam Cobb of Hull York Medical School in the UK, Panagiotopoulou’s coauthor on both papers, offered us the following statement:
It is disappointing to have retracted these two papers in the Journal of Anatomy, but unfortunately errors in the validations and finite element analyses were identified after publication which we felt could not be satisfactorily resolved through a published correction.
In her April correspondence with us, Panagiotopoulou noted her appreciation for the support of her colleagues:
I have received immense support from my institution and my international collaborators and all advised me that scientists make mistakes in their analysis (especially while being students) but very few are brave enough to acknowledge them and retract their own work.
She also mentioned that what triggered the thorough re-examination of the research was “a complaint” they received “with regards to a potential error at our ex vivo validation analysis using laser interferometer.”
What she didn’t mention, however, was that last June she sent a cease and desist letter to a colleague who had originally raised issues about the work. Panagiotopoulou didn’t reply to our request for comment on the current two retractions or on the letter.
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. Click here to review our Comments Policy.
“What she didn’t mention, however, was that last June she sent a cease and desist letter to a colleague who had originally raised issues about the work. Panagiotopoulou didn’t reply to our request for comment on the current two retractions or on the letter.”
Well, that puts her claim to have been ‘doing the right thing’ into perspective…
I am the colleague who raised the issues about this work in April 2010. If the right thing had been done in 2010, three of the now retracted papers would not have been published and I would not have had to deal with ad hominem attacks, counter-allegations, damaging rumours and even threats (incl. legal threats) over the past years. In addition, my own work was questioned as my published results contradicted the data presented in the now retracted papers.
The cease-and-desist letter mentioned above had the effect that I cancelled my hearing in front of the panel that investigated the now retracted “elephant femur paper” (see RW post: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/20/elephant-femur-paper-subject-to-expression-of-concern-retracted-following-investigation/). It is fortunate that this did not negatively affect the outcome of the investigation. However, the “immense support” that Olga Panagiotopoulou received from her institution and her trade union when she tried to silence the whistleblower in an ongoing research misconduct investigation is deeply troubling.
I would also like to correct Panagiotopoulou’s statement that my “complaint” was concerned with a “potential error” in the “ex vivo validation analysis using laser interferometry”. Note e.g. that the now retracted paper “Balancing the spatial spatial demands of the developing dentition with the mechanical demands of the catarrhine mandibular symphysis” by Cobb and Panagiotopoulou does not include such a validation (contrary to the content of the retraction notice). Instead, I explained why the results presented in these papers were “too good to be true” and pointed out several “irregularities” in the tables and figures of the papers and the two corrigenda published by the authors.
To avoid speculations about the underlying reasons for these four retractions, a bit more transparency would be helpful. The institutions that conducted the investigations could simply confirm that all the raw data in question were provided by the authors and thoroughly investigated by external experts and briefly summarise the outcome (e.g. describe the errors that led to these retractions).
If you are indeed the whistleblower (I have no reason to believe that you’re not), you are the one who deserves “immense support from my institution and my international collaborators” – not to mention thanks.