The head of a department at WHU — Otto Beisheim School of Management has been charged with “severe scientific misconduct” for not spotting many of the data irregularities of his co-author Ulrich Lichtenthaler, which have ultimately led to 16 retractions.
According to a news release describing a WHU investigation (which we had translated using One Hour Translation), Holger Ernst did not neglect his supervisory duties, but, as a co-author on many of the retracted papers, he should have been more aware of the data issues in Lichtenthaler’s work:
The committee does, however, find fault with Professor Ernst as a co-author with Dr. Lichtenthaler, having not sufficiently reviewed his work for mistakes, and the commission judges this behavior as severe scientific misconduct. According to the commission’s assessment, by neglecting this duty Professor Ernst bears shared responsibility for the errors occurring in the joint publication. Professor Markus Rudolf, the Rector at WHU, reprimanded this behavior. Additionally, Professor Ernst was charged to do everything within his power to review publications for obvious and serious mistakes in a conscientious manner so as to avoid retractions in the future.
The WHU Commission cleared Ernst of two other charges, according to the release.
Professor Ernst could not be reprimanded for the following circumstances:
-
Joint responsibility and scientific misconduct through active participation in or joint knowledge of the misconduct of Dr. Lichtenthaler in his postdoctoral thesis
-
A gross negligence of supervisory responsibilities with regards to Dr. Lichtenthaler or associates of his professorship
Lichtenthaler has notched 16 retractions, placing him #21 on our leaderboard. As his co-author on many of those papers, Ernst also now has several retractions under his belt, including one from 2012 on which Lichtenthaler was not a co-author.
We’ve contacted Ernst and a representative of WHU for comment, and will update if they respond.
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post. Click here to review our Comments Policy.
It’s unfortunate that American universities are much less likely to hold the “mentor” responsible in any way for what is often detectable research misconduct by a trainee.
Don
If I understand the RW report correctly, Professor Ernst was not found guilty of misconduct as a ‘mentor’ but as a ‘co-author.’ To quote from the Investigation, “Commission on ensuring good scientific practice at WHU: Reprimand for Professor Ernst for joint responsibility as co-author – not, however, a gross negligence of supervisory responsibilities.”
And this seems to me to be appropriate. Ernst was a co-author and thereby shares responsibility for what was reported in the papers.
The Commission makes the important point: “by having not sufficiently reviewed his work for mistakes, and the commission judges this behavior as severe scientific misconduct. According to the commission’s assessment, by neglecting this duty Professor Ernst bears shared responsibility for the errors occurring in the joint publication.”
You share the credit for the publication, you share the responsibility for it.
This was long overdue. Autor is author. Nobody is forced to add his name to a paper and collect all the kudos for it, but if he does he is an author and shares the full responsibility. If he didn’t even bother to read it critically first, then that’s his lookout and not mitigating in the least.
A finding of “severe scientific misconduct” is questionable for the “fault with Professor E… as a co-author with Dr. L….., [for] … having not sufficiently reviewed his [Dr. L’s falsified] work for mistakes, and the commission judges this behavior as severe scientific misconduct” [by Dr. E}. It is especially inappropriate given the commission finding that “Professor Ernst could not be reprimanded for . . . . Joint responsibility and scientific misconduct through active participation in or joint knowledge of the misconduct of Dr. L in his postdoctoral thesis” nor for “gross negligence of supervisory responsibilities. . . ”
In U.S. Government’s regulatory definition of scientific or research misconduct — which has been adopted by almost all universities receiving U.S. Government research funding, includes only “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. . . . . Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.” If the WHU – OBSM uses a similar definition, then it appears from the commission statements that Dr. E did not participate or know of the misconduct by Dr. L, so D. E’s fault would not fall under the [at least the U.S.] definition of “scientific misconduct.”
> Dr. E did not participate or know of the misconduct
So he tried to claim authorship for something he hadn’t participated in and probably not even read to glean the credit. He is the author of a fraudulent paper full stop. Author is author. If you don’t want to be blamed for other people’s mistakes, then don’t don’t try to claim credit where none exists and write your own papers yourself.
Indeed, Axel, it has happened hundreds of time in the last two decades, as documented in ORI office cases in the U.S., that lab chiefs and mentors, including very distinguished, highly ethical, and respected scientist — like Nobel Laureatte Leroy Hood at Cal Tech http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1996-06-28/html/96-16561.htm and
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-07-11/html/95-16961.htm, and University of Michigan professor, turned National Institutes of Health Director, Francis Collins
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-07-15/html/97-18453.htm%5D have unkowingly failed to detect falsification and fabrication of data in the manuscripts for publications by their previously fully-trusted postdoctoral fellows, or graduate students. No one ever called for them to be accused or to be found guilty of research misconduct themselves. Like most lab chiefs in ORI cases, they were shocked by the actions of those under them and tried to repair the damage, with public retractions.