The Pennsylvania State University in May blocked a prominent professor at the school from doing research and making presentations on its behalf, Retraction Watch has learned.
The professor, Deborah Kelly, has faced mounting scrutiny over her work since a researcher in the United Kingdom noticed apparent data manipulation in a now-retracted article she published in 2017. Kelly earned her third retraction last week following a university probe that found “serious data integrity concerns” in another paper, as we reported at the time.
In comments she made via her legal counsel for that story, Kelly, a biomedical engineer and an expert in electron microscopy, told us:
To date, I am under no restrictions imposed upon my research and no such restrictions are anticipated. I remain dedicated to ethical research, will cooperate with inquiries concerning my research, and will continue to uphold the highest ethical standards in all my future research endeavors.
But Wednesday, in response to a follow-up request for comment, we heard from Andrew Read, Senior Vice President for Research:
It has come to my attention that Dr. Deborah Kelly submitted a statement published on retractionwatch.com in which she stated: ‘To date, I am under no restrictions imposed upon my research and no such restrictions are anticipated.’ As of May 2024, Dr. Kelly is prohibited from conducting research, pursuing grants or contracts, submitting publications, or making presentations on behalf of the Pennsylvania State University.
We asked Kelly for comments and received the following statement from her legal counsel:
Though I am still presently employed at The Pennsylvania State University, I am embarking on new opportunities. Through my academic freedom of expression, I am under no restrictions in my independent research efforts apart from Penn State.
It is not clear which “independent research efforts” Kelly is referring to. As we reported previously, her LinkedIn page lists her as executive director of the new non-profit think tank Structural Oncology LLC.
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].
Pathological…
Facility employees usually don’t have enough information to notice problems, postdocs would not dare to speak up if they are under the PI, and colleagues often don’t know the exact details of others works, unless they actively participate in departmental seminars. In other words, not many people would know that there’s a possibility of plagiarism, and often people assume the best of others.
What puzzles me about this whole story: a PI publishes made-up pure noise structures for many years, and no colleague in the faculty, PostDoc, facility employee or anyone else there dared to speak up? Are there no regular discussions where these obvious concerns could be raised? Maybe this PI was so powerful that noone dared to speak up?
Well, if you’ve practised manufacturing conclusions out of no actual data through photoshop for definitely more than 5 years under an institution, surely all you need is a laptop to “keep doing independent research”.
I hear no actual data is very easy to come by, even without a lab, trials, subjects or institutional funding.
As a librarian that deals with research articles this non professional should consider sweeping floors at Penn State instead of muddying the research that is used for patient care
Oh, maybe its time to not name “prominent” people who are the 90th author and get 6000 citation on it. This are the ‘perks’ of today’s academic prost****, where citations and “cooperations” are more important than anything.
Useless rankings, useless numbers, worthless anytics…on what? To leave aside the most deserving ones, that do not have or do not even accept the “crowns” of prominence by walking over dead bodies! Shame where academia has come
Correction: 390th author
It’s laudable that Penn State came out & unequivocally stated what the situation is. When I see this, it elevates the stature of the university.
I don’t see them open about anything. Can we see the result of their investigation published? What will be the consequences they draw?
I recently read an article stating that a whole series of published papers on some other subject appear to be AI generated and completely fake, and were discovered only by massive cross referencing of authors and specific phrasing within the content.
I have also personally known people who, when I was working on my own Master’s degree (which I didn’t finish), advised me to stop stressing and “just fake the data — that’s what I did for my Doctorate.’
I recommend that a serious program be launched, both now and in perpetuity, to triple cross. Check every published paper for not just accuracy, not just truthfulness, but for sheer legitimacy, from the reality of its data to the very existence of its authors. Otherwise, the entire research body, the entire towering edifice of accumulated knowledge on which our modern civilization so crucially depends, is in serious Jeopardy.
Impressive that she can continue to deny everything despite all the examples of blatant photoshopping of blots, microscopy images, etc.
Would it not have been beneficial, if professors were to be assessed by share quality of work done, and published, rather than number of papers? I think years painstakingly spent on doing good research works, that are reliable, and of real contributions to advancement of
their fields, would be more beneficial to humanity.