Nanoscience researcher loses four papers for image manipulation, forged authors

Journals published by the Royal Society of Chemistry have retracted four articles by a researcher in China for a range of misconduct, including manipulation of images, fabrication of authors and more. 

The papers were written by Rijun Gui, of Qingdao University and formerly of the School of Chemistry and Molecules Engineering at East China University of Science and Technology, in Shanghai, and published in 2013 and 2014. Gui has a sizable entry on PubPeer, where many of his studies have come under scrutiny for years. Together, the four papers have been cited nearly 150 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

It’s not quite Rashomon, but each of the retraction notices adds a bit of detail to the story. 

The 2013 article, “Aqueous synthesis of human serum albumin-stabilized fluorescent Au/Ag core/shell nanocrystals for highly sensitive and selective sensing of copper(II),” appeared in the journal Analyst. According to the retraction notice: 

The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Analyst article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.

The TEM images in Fig. 1e and 7b represent duplication of data, given that these experiments were reported under different reaction conditions.

In addition, the TEM images in Fig. 1 and 7a–d duplicate data in another publication, but represent different materials.1

Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.

The authors initially requested to retract this article but they have not commented upon the wording of the retraction notice.

Gui also lost “A facile cation exchange-based aqueous synthesis of highly stable and biocompatible Ag2S quantum dots emitting in the second near-infrared biological window,” which appeared in Dalton Transactions in 2014. Per the notice: 

The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Dalton Transactions article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.

The TEM images in Fig. 2a and b duplicate data in another publication, but represent different materials.1

The NIR-II PL image in Fig. S7a duplicates data that has been reported in other publications.2,3 In addition the optical image in Fig. S7b duplicates data from ref. 2.

The XRD image in Fig. 3b duplicates data in other publications, but representing different materials.4–7

Given the number and significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.

Rijun Gui opposes the retraction, saying that incorrect images were inadvertently used in Fig. 2a and b, but states that the data in Fig. 3b, S7a and S7b is accurate. The other authors were contacted but did not respond.

The other two retractions involve “Upconversion luminescent logic gates and turn-on sensing of glutathione based on two-photon excited quantum dots conjugated with dopamine,” which Chemical Communications published in 2014, and the 2014 article “Water-soluble multidentate polymers compactly coating Ag2S quantum dots with minimized hydrodynamic size and bright emission tunable from red to second near-infrared region,” in Nanoscale. 

The notice for the former reads:

(1) The Royal Society of Chemistry has been notified by the Office of Academic Research, Qingdao University that the authorship, affiliations and acknowledgements of this paper are incorrect. They informed us that “Rijun Gui has confirmed that he independently completed the experimental research before he joined Qingdao University. Without their knowledge and prior notice, he signed the names of irrelevant researchers (Hui Jin, Xifeng Liu, Zonghua Wang, Jianfei Xia, Min Yang, Feifei Zhang and Sai Bi) in his paper and added the Funding numbers of the irrelevant researchers in his papers without authorization. Rijun Gui confirmed that these irrelevant researchers did not participate in experimental researches reported in his paper and they did not provide financial support. They have no contribution to the paper.” They concluded that “the names of the irrelevant researchers without contribution are required to be deleted from the authorship of the paper, and their funding numbers without providing financial support are required to be deleted from the “Acknowledgements”.”

The corrected authorship list and affiliations for this paper are as follows:

Rijun Gui*a

aSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China.

Email: [email protected]

The corrected Acknowledgements for this paper are as follows:

This work was financially supported by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Shanghai (13R21413800).

(2) The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Chemical Communications article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.

The TEM image in Fig. S1a duplicates data in a number of other publications, but reported as different materials.1–5

Given the significance of the concern about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.

Rijun Gui requested to retract this article due to the incorrect authorship, but opposes the wording in this retraction notice.

The notice for the Nanoscale paper states: 

The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Nanoscale article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.

The TEM image in Fig. 1c duplicates data published in other publications, but representing different materials.1,2

The XRD data in Fig. 1d duplicates data in other publications, but representing different materials.2–5

Given the number and significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.

Rijun Gui opposes this retraction and states that the data published in this article is accurate. The other authors were contacted but did not respond.

Gui did not respond to our requests for comment. Philippa Ross, the executive editor at the Royal Society of Chemistry, told us: 

This is a complex case, which involved a number of retractions in different RSC journals and has been exacerbated by COVID closures causing significant communications issues. We’re grateful for the PubPeer notification from a member of the community, as that enabled us to kick off our initial investigation.

As with any possible retraction, we were careful to apply the COPE guidance on such a delicate issue, and due to the impact of the pandemic in China, we gave the authors an extended period to respond. Unfortunately, they were not able to give satisfactory explanations for the concerns or provide genuine raw data for some of the papers, which undermines the reliability of the published articles and warranted the decision to retract.

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, 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].