A third paper co-authored by researchers based at a prominent lab whose work has been under investigation on and off for almost three years has been retracted.
According to the notice, the university’s investigation found that a 2008 paper in FEBS Letters contained “clear signs of manipulation” in three figures.
The university’s first investigation, which concluded in 2015, cleared Latchman of misconduct, but determined procedural matters in his lab “required attention.” Latchman is currently the master of the college of Birkbeck in London (a role equivalent to vice-chancellor). Birkbeck and UCL are both part of the University of London, made up of 18 independent institutions.
But the matter was not closed. According to Nature News, after new allegations into the team’s work surfaced, UCL initiated a second probe in March 2015. As the Guardian wrote last year, the probe focused on research stemming from Latchman’s UCL lab:
The [new] inquiry will centre on several research papers published by Latchman’s human genetics research group based at nearby University College London. A screening panel at UCL has recommended a full investigation after it completed an initial assessment of the new allegations, according to details obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.
In all cases, I did not produce any of the figures in the papers criticized or directly supervise their production … I greatly regret that in common with the other authors and the reviewers, I did not detect the errors in these papers.
We contacted UCL, but have not heard back. We reached out to Latchman and several of his coauthors as well. A spokesperson at Birkbeck contacted us on Latchman’s behalf, and sent us a statement from Sir Harvey McGrath, chair of governors at the university:
The matter does not relate to Professor David Latchman’s leadership of Birkbeck, which has been excellent for the past 15 years. Furthermore, there is no suggestion by UCL that Professor Latchman had any knowledge of, or involvement in, the image manipulation identified.
Four of the 14 co-authors on the now-retracted 2008 paper—Richard Knight, Tiziano Scarabelli, Anastasis Stephanou, and Paul A. Townsend—were co-authors on at least one of the two other retracted papers. According to one of the retraction notices, Stephanou said the co-authors were uninvolved:
The corresponding author, A.S., regrets the inappropriate figure manipulations of which the co-authors were completely unaware.
The above article from FEBS Letters, published online on February 22, 2008 in Wiley Online Library (http://wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been withdrawn by agreement between the authors, the Journal Managing Editor Felix Wieland, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd., on behalf of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies. The retraction has been agreed following an initial investigation from the University College London that found clear signs of manipulation in Figures 1, 3, and 5. A subsequent investigation by the journal’s Editorial Office with the assistance of an image integrity analyst corroborated these findings.
The paper has been cited 23 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, including once by the notice.
It’s unclear which UCL probe the notice is referring to; the journal has not yet responded to our inquiry.
In the first investigation, UCL found evidence of misconduct in eight of the screened papers. We do not know how many or which papers have been analyzed in the university’s newer investigation.
Latchman told Nature News last March that he hopes UCL will complete its probe in a timely manner:
It is now over three years since UCL was first contacted about these allegations … In my view, the investigation should focus on those actually involved in preparing the questionable figures and those directly involved in supervising their production.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at email@example.com.