A nanotube researcher in Japan has earned 13 retractions, with more to come, after an extensive investigation by the country’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) revealed widespread misconduct in his work.
AIST’s investigation found Naohiro Kameta, senior principal researcher at the Nanomaterials Research Institute located in AIST’s Ibaraki campus, fabricated and falsified dozens of studies. He was apparently dismissed from his role following the findings.
The institute first learned of the problems in Kameta’s work in November 2022, according to a translated version of the investigation report. Initially, they looked into five papers, but eventually expanded their scrutiny to 61 articles on which Kameta was the lead or responsible author.
The investigation, which wrapped up in December 2023, found Kameta had “independently committed research misconduct” by fabricating and falsifying data in 42 papers published between 2005 and 2022. According to the findings, Kameta cut out parts of electron micrographs to portray them as different structures. He also falsified scale bars of diagrams to be longer or shorter – in one instance making the scale almost 10 times larger than the true size of the material shown. The report added Kameta’s research notes were incomplete and many of the samples he should have preserved were discarded.
Kameta received about $230,000 (more than ¥33 million) in grant funding for research topics broadly related to the misconduct, of which approximately $35,000 was directly spent on the work described in the papers AIST found to have fake data, according to the investigation report. The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science has ordered the research funds be returned, and stated they will not provide funding to Kameta for 10 years.
Investigators at AIST collected responses to a questionnaire sent to more than 20 other individuals who had co-authored papers with Kameta. According to their responses, many of them had trusted Kameta’s expertise and didn’t critically review the data or images presented in the final publications. In some cases, co-authors admitted they didn’t check the papers before submission.
In the 19 papers AIST reviewed that didn’t appear to have evidence of research misconduct, the investigation found data discrepancies in 14 that did not significantly affect the conclusions of the papers. Those issues may have arisen because of “carelessness,” according to the investigators, who recommended Kameta request corrections for these articles.
The institution also identified Toshimi Shimizu and Mitsutoshi Masuda, colleagues of Kameta at AIST, as authors responsible for the content of the papers, but found they were not involved in any misconduct. Shimizu’s staff page remains active on the AIST website, although his institutional email bounced back when we attempted to contact him. Masuda is listed as a deputy director of sustainable chemistry at the institute. He did not respond to requests for comment.
Several journals have already begun retracting Kameta’s work, and more are expected to follow. By our count, out of the 42 papers identified as problematic, 13 have so far been retracted. Fourteen of the remaining, unretracted papers appeared in journals published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. A representative of the publisher said they were aware of the issues and would be pursuing retractions of the papers. Five other unretracted papers appeared in journals published by the American Chemical Society. The publisher has not responded to requests for comment.
In July, the institution released a statement regarding Kameta’s case, announcing that “one employee found to have been involved in research misconduct will be dismissed.” Another employee not involved in misconduct, but responsible for the papers, would be suspended from work for a month, according to the statement. AIST’s press office would not confirm whether the dismissed employee was Kameta, but the investigators identified Kameta as the only individual responsible for the misconduct. Kameta no longer has a staff profile on the institution’s website and his email bounced back when we attempted to contact him.
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].
Isn’t dishonor severely frowned upon I Japan? At least it used to be.
“Dismissed from his role…” Is that a vague way of saying he was fired?
Fraud in science has become a plague. It’s simply not possible to write so many papers in such short time. If it were, we’d all have flying cars and self-repairing clothes and so on. Look around, actual innovation is rare, and takes time.
Well-said. The problem is that in most fields, quantity will beat out quality and hence most people feel pressured to keep pushing out papers.
What can we as a community do to start an initiative to get fraudulent researcher’s PhD revoked?
Perhaps we should ask whether the community agrees to the idea. I do not.
1) presume a researcher gets his PhD on non-fraudulent research
2) further, presume that, three years later, said researcher commits fraud on a different research project unrelated to their PhD – seems the example in the article.
Why would their PhD degree be revoked?
1) for another example: I do not see MSc Finance & Accounting being stripped of their degree when they commit fraud in their work. Why should a researcher be?
2) the intent of punishment is to deter behavior AND to reinstate individuals in society once they paid their dues. If a researcher is stripped of their PhD title (presuming the title was not fraudulent, as per point 1), how would we expect that the individual is reintegrated into society? They would probably seek an academic job somewhere, but without a PhD it is very difficult.
I think fraudulent researchers should get their PhD work investigated, but if no wrongdoing is found, then I do not think removing a PhD is a good idea
It’s a matter of degree (no pun intended). This man committed 42 cases of fraud. He received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his research. ALL of his work is suspect and he cannot be trusted ever again. Trust cannot be regained and he should never be allowed to do academic work ever again. Fraud is the one cardinal sin for a research scientist. Every paper he’s ever done should be pulled, fraud or no fraud, because even in the cases where fraud isn’t suspected, you can essentially never be 100% sure.
Realistically, the man should be in jail.
This is what peer-reviewed means… Absolutely nothing. It means your buddy also wrote his name down. Wamp wamp
Seems serious enough, like most fabrication cases are. Do we have leaderboards in terms of the type of misconduct? I don’t remember the details, but it seems Stapel himself wasn’t this “productive”?
As for the usual comments attacking science in general, including us peers doing peer review, these things are extremely difficult to detect. But what is it with laboratory equipment in these fields? One might have envisioned that basic cyber security techniques like hashing and watermarking would have become common by now, no?
ACS retracts 3 manuscripts 11/15/2024: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c03029; https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c03019;
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemmater.4c03020
And Langmuir retracted two (October 25, 2024); ACS Omega one (July 3, 2024);