Paper co-authored by controversial Australian journalist earns expression of concern

One more paper co-authored by Australian health journalist Maryanne Demasi has earned an expression of concern for image duplication.

The move comes seven years after the journal Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) was first made aware of potential problems with a figure in Demasi’s paper that showed Western blots. It marks the third time one of the former researcher’s scientific publications has been officially flagged as concerning or retracted.

Demasi, who earned her PhD from the University of Adelaide in 2004, has been in the news recently after she did a controversial interview with the lead author of a Cochrane review that cast doubt on face masks. She has drawn frequent rebuke over the past decade, beginning with a 2013 program in which her reporting questioned statins. She and her co-authors told us in 2018 that they believe her work as a journalist made her research a target of criticism.

Following a yearslong probe by the university into allegations of image manipulation in Demasi’s PhD thesis, she admitted she had “duplicated or probably duplicated” some images. However, as we reported earlier, this practice was felt to have been acceptable at the time and Demasi was not found guilty of research misconduct.

In its new notice, published March 11, BBA referred to another probe:

Following an investigation by the Central Adelaide Local Health Networks (CALHN) panel, concerns have been raised relating to the veracity of the data presented in Fig. 6. These concerns cannot be resolved since the original data are no longer available.

The problematic images were first spotted in 2016 by David Vaux of the Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne (Vaux is a member of the board of directors of The Center for Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization). He shared his misgivings with BBA and the University of Adelaide that same year, as we reported earlier. The journal told him the paper would receive an expression of concern in October, but the notice did not appear until this month 

Vaux welcomed the new development, but told us in an email:

While having the original data might have helped them determine which of the authors was responsible for making the figure, the availability of the original images is not necessary to show, on balance of probabilities, that parts of the image had been duplicated and altered.

Judging by a comment she left on PubPeer in 2021, sleuth Elisabeth Bik seems to agree:

Not only appear the four lanes to be showing the same blot strip, the molecular weights and aspect ratios appear to have changed as well, suggesting this is not a simple mistake.

Vaux also pointed out that an earlier comment on PubPeer had also raised concerns about other images in the paper that were not addressed in the journal’s statement. According to that comment:

All points are same in Fig. 2A and Demasi [PhD] thesis Fig. 7.5 except 18 hr hypoxia point, which has different mean and SEMs. Could the authors please explain?

We emailed Demasi as well as the corresponding and first authors, but have not heard back.

Their paper, titled “Endothelial cell COX-2 expression and activity in hypoxia,” was published in 2006. It has been cited 31 times, including twice this year, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The authors “would like us to believe the [paper’s] conclusions are not affected, as concerns have not been raised about Figs. 3, 4, and 5,” Vaux told us.

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].