A researcher who retracted two papers last year following a years-long investigation has lost another, this one two decades old.
The same journal also corrected two papers for image duplication within days of the retraction.
The moves followed comments about image similarities on PubPeer. The retraction marks the third for biochemist Dario Alessi, a professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland. Two of his papers were retracted in 2024, a process that took six years and included a four-year investigation by the university.
Several of Alessi’s papers have been flagged on PubPeer, many of which point out image similarities.The university responded to many of the critiques, stating the data supported the findings and the conclusions of the papers were not affected by repetitions in the figures.
The latest retraction, of the 2003 paper, “Insulin-induced Drosophila S6 kinase activation requires phosphoinositide 3-kinase and protein kinase B,” is Alessi’s second from Biochemical Journal. A spokesperson for Portland Press, the journal’s publisher, told us in an email this retraction was not part of the same investigation as Alessi’s previous retractions. Inka Näthke, research integrity lead for the University of Dundee’s School of Life Sciences, confirmed this retraction “is not related to the formal investigation from a few years ago.”
The paper has been cited 60 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
In October, PubPeer commenter Panulirus gracilis pointed out image similarities between figures in the paper. Shortly afterward, the University of Dundee responded they were “examining the points raised.” After a second commenter, Sporolithon tenue, pointed out more figures that were “more similar than expected,” the university posted in the PubPeer thread stating it would ask the journal to retract the article.
Alessi told us in an email this week he was “alerted to issues with the paper in October 2024” but didn’t confirm to us the concerns came from PubPeer. He then brought the issue to the University of Dundee, Alessi told us. He confirmed it was not part of the same investigation as the other two papers.
He also said the researchers were unaware of any image duplication when preparing the manuscripts before they were published and said there was “no evidence of misconduct” for the papers. Näthke also confirmed there was no indication of misconduct.
According to the April 1 retraction notice, the authors requested the retraction after a reader pointed out similarities in Western blots. The notice reads:
Given the 20 + years that have passed since the work producing these data was carried out in Professor Alessi’s laboratory at the University of Dundee, the corresponding author and the research integrity group in the School of Life Sciences at the University of Dundee have not been able to obtain the original data for this article, so feel that the best course of action given the concerns is to retract the paper.
The notice lists five instances where images from one figure “appear” elsewhere in the same image or in another figure in the paper.
Despite the issues with the figures, “The authors would like to highlight that the main conclusions reported in this article remain valid,” the retraction notice states.
The Portland Press spokesperson said the journal is also “looking at other papers by the author where potential issues have been noted.” The journal issued two corrections in March and April for papers coauthored by Alessi. One corrects “partial duplication of Western blots” and another “repetition of blots,” which the journal called “unintentional errors.”
Jose Lizcano, the corresponding author of the paper, did not respond to our request for comment. Biochemical Journal retracted one of Lizcano’s articles on January 30 after comments on PubPeer pointed out image duplication in the work.
Update, April 18, 2025: We’ve updated the post with comment from Inka Näthke of the University of Dundee.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].
In what way is it important to include photos of Western blots… why bother? If it is actually important, then how can duplicated, altered and/or mislabeled images be submitted without misconduct, especially repeatedly. Is this easier to do inadvertently than it is to submit duplicated, altered and mislabeled data? I’ve never done a blot and I really don’t understand what’s going on here and in lots of other papers.
The following post and its comments seem interesting:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/stop-hocusing-your-western-blots-maybe