If you’re a fan of the post hoc fallacy, this post is for you. If not, we hope you’ll bear with us anyway.
In June, we reported on an expression of concern in the Journal of Cell Science for a 2006 paper “several bands…in Fig. 5 look very similar.” At the time, we noted that while the expression of concern claimed that the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the authors’ institution, “does not have a suitable body to investigate this matter,” it in fact does.
After hearing that from us, Sharon Ahmad, the journal’s managing editor, approached Carlos Petrini, the director of bioethics at the ISS, who proceeded to investigate the work. Petrini has now sent us the summary of that investigation, which we’ve made available here.
In sum, the original data behind the 2006 paper aren’t available, but because because other groups have found findings consistent with the original paper, the ISS ethics body “reviewed and confirmed results and conclusions of the paper.”
We asked Petrini to explain how the ISS came to that conclusion. He told Retraction Watch:
1) We extensively discussed with the authors about questioned findings.
2) Based on the literature, we have no reason not to believe to the authors.
3) The ISS is working to set up an institutional repository to store data obtained from research conducted with public funding (including plate scans). I enclose a brief presentation.
The argument, it seems, is a variation on “a broken clock is still right twice a day.” If you trust clocks like that, we have some…watches to sell you.
The expression of concern now includes this update:
After this note was published, Journal of Cell Science was contacted by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità to clarify that they do in fact have a committee to investigate research integrity matters, and that they would endeavour to make this more obvious. They investigated this case and issued the following statement:
* The Bioethics Unit and the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS: Italian National Institute of Health) are in charge of dealing with ethical issues and research integrity matters. The ISS Bioethics Unit and the ISS REC carried out an independent investigation following the Expression of Concern published by the Journal of Cell Science. The corresponding author, Dr Raffaella Guerriero, provided relevant and pertinent documentation and information.
* Following the investigation, the ISS Research Ethics Committee and the ISS Bioethics Unit confirm the results and conclusions of the paper by Guerriero et al. (2006). The Head of the ISS Research Coordination and Support Service was informed about the results of this investigation. The President of the ISS, Prof. Silvio Brusaferro, approved the results of the investigation and the present note.
Sharon Ahmad, the journal’s managing editor, told Retraction Watch that the paper remains subject to an expression of concern:
We ask institutes to investigate in cases where we are unable to do so at a distance. The investigating committee at ISS were not able to uncover any of the reasons that the issues raised about the paper occurred, so we thought it was in the best interests of readers to give full details of the process. I explained this to Dr Petrini, and sent him a copy of the amended Publisher’s Note in advance, and he was satisfied with this outcome.
Expressions of concern, we note, are not designed to linger forever, although many do.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, 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 protected].
“Petrini has now sent us the summary of that investigation”
States:
“As already notified, original data related to Figure 5, object of concern, are no longer available.”
“Conclusions are based on several data-based findings and on a review of the literature in this topic
at the time of preparation of the manuscript. Moreover two independent following papers describe
and confirm part of the conclusions reported by the authors 3,4.”
What does a review of the literature have to do with the data in this paper?
What do conclusions reported by two other groups have to do with the data in this paper?
Exactly, papers under review are critiqued on their own merits, not on what other papers have found. The result of this internal review is unbelievable!
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2A60C0A5AC8CCDEC4982875265CFCF
What is the record for longest standing, unresolved, Expression of concern?
I know of these, now over a decade old:
PNAS June 3, 2008 105 (22) 7893; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803890105
NCX-1000, a NO-releasing derivative of ursodeoxycholic acid, selectively delivers NO to the liver and protects against development of portal hypertension
NCX-1015, a nitric-oxide derivative of prednisolone, enhances regulatory T cells in the lamina propria and protects against 2,4,6-trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis in mice
A β-oxidation-resistant lipoxin A4 analog treats hapten-induced colitis by attenuating inflammation and immune dysfunction
I wonder at the training of some scientists regarding keeping proper records. It is all down to the mentors and I guess I was lucky? in the UK (when I did my Doctorate anyway) there were no formal classes on scientific record-keeping, but my mentor was American, and he instilled in me the (proper) notion that your laboratory notebook is essentially a legal document. I can provide original data for all my 52 publications and several grants going back 24 years, and I imagine most scientists could say the same.
Istituto Superiore di Sanità publication.
J Biol Chem. 1999 May 14;274(20):14176-87.
Phorbol ester-induced disruption of the CD4-Lck complex occurs within a detergent-resistant microdomain of the plasma membrane. Involvement of the translocation of activated protein kinase C isoforms.
Parolini I1, Topa S, Sorice M, Pace A, Ceddia P, Montesoro E, Pavan A, Lisanti MP, Peschle C, Sargiacomo M.
Author information
1
Department of Hematology-Oncology, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Figure 1a. Much more similar than expected.
See:-
https://imgur.com/msmWVqP
https://imgur.com/SSfRwpn
https://imgur.com/JySFfi4
https://imgur.com/ie1gXru
https://imgur.com/LCCzvDj
This Expression of Concern relates to J. Cell Sci. (2006) 119, 744-752 (doi:10.1242/jcs.02784).
Journal of Cell Science was informed that several bands in each of the ERK1/2, P-AKT, AKT and p70S6K blots in Fig. 5 look very similar. After discussions with the first author, Raffaella Guerriero, who was unable to locate the original data, the journal referred this matter to the Istituto Superiore di Sanità. As the institute does not have a suitable body to investigate this matter, the journal is publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers to issues with the western blots shown in Fig. 5. Without the original full blots and an impartial investigation by the institute, the journal cannot determine whether the results and conclusions reported in the paper are compromised.
The authors apologise to readers for any inconvenience caused.
Update:
After this note was published, Journal of Cell Science was contacted by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità to clarify that they do in fact have a committee to investigate research integrity matters, and that they would endeavour to make this more obvious. They investigated this case and issued the following statement:
The Bioethics Unit and the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS: Italian National Institute of Health) are in charge of dealing with ethical issues and research integrity matters. The ISS Bioethics Unit and the ISS REC carried out an independent investigation following the Expression of Concern published by the Journal of Cell Science. The corresponding author, Dr Raffaella Guerriero, provided relevant and pertinent documentation and information.
Following the investigation, the ISS Research Ethics Committee and the ISS Bioethics Unit confirm the results and conclusions of the paper by Guerriero et al. (2006). The Head of the ISS Research Coordination and Support Service was informed about the results of this investigation. The President of the ISS, Prof. Silvio Brusaferro, approved the results of the investigation and the present note.
Via: https://jcs.biologists.org/content/132/16/jcs237495