The Journal of Cellular Physiology, a Wiley title, will retract two articles by an arthritis researcher the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found to have engaged in research misconduct, Retraction Watch has learned.
Last November, the VA published findings stating Hee-Jeong Im Sampen, formerly a research biologist at the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Chicago, faked images and inflated sample sizes in three published papers, a grant application, a presentation, and an unpublished manuscript.
Based on the findings, the VA banned Sampen, who publishes under the name Hee-Jeong Im, from conducting research for the department and requested retractions of the three publications.
Two of the papers, “Development of an Experimental Animal Model for Lower Back Pain by Percutaneous Injury-Induced Lumbar Facet Joint Osteoarthritis” and “Environmental Disruption of Circadian Rhythm Predisposes Mice to Osteoarthritis-Like Changes in Knee Joint,” appeared in the Journal of Cellular Physiology in 2015, and don’t currently have any sort of notice about the VA finding they contain faked images.
In response to our inquiry, a Wiley spokesperson said the publisher was aware of the VA’s request to retract the paper “and has investigated.” The retractions “are in progress and should take place within the next few weeks.”
The third article in the VA’s findings, “PKCδ null mutations in a mouse model of osteoarthritis alter osteoarthritic pain independently of joint pathology by augmenting NGF/TrkA-induced axonal outgrowth,” was retracted July 1. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the BMJ journal in which the paper appeared, “was notified in February 2024” about the findings of research misconduct, according to the retraction notice. The journal also acknowledged and linked to the November 2023 Federal Register notice about the findings.
The three papers have been cited more than 100 times collectively, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, with a handful of those coming after the VA’s publication of its findings.
Sampen, who holds a part-time, untenured position as a research professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Illinois, Chicago, told us she disagrees with the retractions, and the findings were “unjustified.” She previously disputed the VA’s findings at length, saying they “appear to serve some VA administrative purpose and led to my termination, but they lack validity from a legal, ethical, and practical scientific perspective.”
The findings in her case are currently under review at the US Office of Research Integrity, Sampen told us. She continued:
But whatever ORI decides, I would like to tell you that the scientific validity of my lab’s research and findings have never been questioned. The allegations of research misconduct against me are based on my supervisory role, concern a tiny fraction of the enormous amounts of data my lab has published, and simply involve erroneously placed figures or images.
Throughout my entire life, I have humbly pursued science and put in a tremendous amount of effort while progressing as an academic. Science was my whole life. I never expected my reputation would hinge on alleged errors of which I was unaware and beyond my direct control.
The retraction of the two Journal of Cellular Physiology papers will bring Sampen’s total to four, by our count.
Arthritis Research and Therapy, a Springer Nature title, retracted another of Sampen’s articles, “Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 is principally responsible for fibroblast growth factor 2-induced catabolic activities in human articular chondrocytes,” in August. The notice states “an investigation jointly conducted by Rush University and the Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVAMC) has determined that Fig. 5B contains fabricated and/or falsified data,” though the paper wasn’t listed in the VA’s published findings. The paper has been cited more than 100 times.
Sampen has continued to publish after the findings were announced, with “Nanoparticle-based inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors alleviates osteoarthritis pain and cartilage damage” appearing in Science Advances in February. The paper, which received coverage in New Scientist without any mention of the public misconduct findings, describes experiments administering an experimental drug formulation to mice with osteoarthritis.
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].
The ORI will keep the case for record keeping forever.