Researcher who lost whistleblower lawsuit logs 4 more retractions

A brain journal has retracted four papers by a researcher due to image duplications that the university uncovered during an investigation into his work.

According to the retraction notice, Wayne State University found that Christian Kreipke had used several images in these articles “to represent different results in grant proposals and/or poster presentations,” and that the data were unreliable. Kreipke now has a total of five retractions, by our count.

As we’ve reported before, Wayne State and Kreipke have been engaged in conflict for several years. In 2012, Kreipke was dismissed from his assistant professor post at Wayne State after the university said it found evidence of research misconduct, according to Courthouse News. Kreipke fired back against the university, filing a whistleblower lawsuit. In it, Kreipke claimed that the institution was “involved in a conspiracy,” according to unsealed court documents, in which it had swindled the U.S. government out of millions in research funding.

A judge dismissed the case in 2014, but the conflict between Kreipke and Wayne State was not over.

According to the Scotus blog, in May 2016, Kreipke’s attorney, Shereef Akeel, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. On January 9, the petitioned was denied.

Meanwhile, this past September, we reported on Kreipke’s first retraction, which his lawyer told us was a retaliatory move from Wayne State because of Kreipke’s whistleblower lawsuit.

But just last week, the editors and publishers of Neurological Research retracted four papers by Kreipke after he used figures in the papers to represent different results in several grant proposals and poster presentations:

• Clazosentan, a novel endothelin A antagonist, improves cerebral blood flow and behavior after traumatic brain injury. Neurol Res. 2011;33(2):208-13. (First author, cited 3 times).
• Differential effects of endothelin receptor A and B antagonism on cerebral hypoperfusion following traumatic brain injury. Neurol Res. 2010;32(2):209-14. (First author, cited 15 times).
• Pericyte-mediated vasoconstriction underlies TBI-induced hypoperfusion. Neurol Res. 2011;33(2):176-86. (Last author, cited 27 times).
• Extent of nerve cell injury in Marmarou’s model compared to other brain trauma models. Neurol Res. 2007;29(4):348-55. (Last author, cited 21 times)

Here’s the retraction notice:

Following an investigation by Wayne State University into the research conducted by Dr CW Kreipke, it has been determined to retract the above articles. The University found that several images presented in the above articles were also used to represent different results in grant proposals and/or poster presentations authored by Dr Kreipke. The University concluded that the data were fundamentally unreliable and recommended that the above articles should be retracted.

We have been informed in our decision-making by the guidance of COPE guidelines on retractions.

The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.

Kreipke had already received corrigenda for two of the papers in 2013 over figure-related errors.

Akeel, Kreipke’s attorney, told us that these latest allegations by the university were “slanderous and defamatory:”

Dr. [Kreipke] has categorically denied [that] he ever created [those] images as that was not even his responsibility, and he was not even the sole author of the articles that are being retracted.

Please keep in mind as well that it was determined that the actual numerical scientific findings which was my client’s responsibility were accurate.

Akeel also noted that the timing of the four retractions is “very coincidental,” in that it happened shortly after the Supreme Court denied Kreipke’s petition.

A spokesperson for the publisher, Taylor and Francis, referred us to the retraction statement as “providing all relevant information to this instance.” We also contacted the journal’s editor-in-chief and the university’s vice dean. We’ll update the post if we learn anything else.

Update, 4 p.m. Eastern, 3/5/17: Through his attorney, Kreipke sent us this comment:

On numerous occasions the Publisher has been asked to retract my manuscripts.  Each request was denied.  In fact, well AFTER the first attempt by Wayne State University to have my manuscripts retracted and AFTER the results of their investigation were made known, the managing editor agreed to publish two Corrigenda to manuscripts in question which clearly stated that errors were made, but that these errors did not alter the validity of the findings. By both government and University standards, honest error is NOT misconduct.  It is, therefore, unclear why suddenly, with no new evidence being proffered, the publishers have reversed their previous decisions NOT to retract any papers.  I agree with my lawyer that the timing of this is remarkable given the past and current, on-going litigation.  Incidentally, in the other two manuscripts in question Wayne State refused to obtain the raw data to verify the accuracy of these manuscripts and, thus, there is no evidence to support charges of misconduct or any impropriety in these publications.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.