We have four more retractions by Dipak Das, the disgraced UConn researcher found by the university to have committed 145 counts of misconduct. All appear in the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology (we left the journal off when we initially posted, as commenters noted):
“Redox regulation of angiotensin II preconditioning of the myocardium requires MAP kinase signaling,” cited 28 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
This follows the published investigation by the University of Connecticut Health Center into Professor Dipak K. Das, the corresponding author on this paper. The University of Connecticut Health Center’s research misconduct investigation has determined that images appearing in Figs. 2, 4a, 4b and 4c contain instances of data fabrication.
“Ischemic preconditioning involves dual cardio-protective axes with p38MAPK as upstream target,” cited 30 times:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
This follows the published investigation by the University of Connecticut Health Center into Professor Dipak K. Das, the corresponding author on this paper. The University of Connecticut Health Center’s research misconduct investigation has determined that images appearing in Figs. 7 and 8 contain instances of data fabrication.
“Overexpression of glutaredoxin-2 reduces myocardial cell death by preventing both apoptosis and necrosis,” cited 29 times:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
This follows the published investigation by the University of Connecticut Health Center into Professor Dipak K. Das, the corresponding author on this paper. The University of Connecticut Health Center’s research misconduct investigation has determined that images appearing in Figs. 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9 contain instances of data fabrication.
“Role of glutaredoxin-1 in cardioprotection: An insight with Glrx1 transgenic and knockout animals,” cited 22 times:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.
This follows the published investigation by the University of Connecticut Health Center into Professor Dipak K. Das, the corresponding author on this paper. The University of Connecticut Health Center’s research misconduct investigation has determined that images appearing in Figs. 3, 9 and 10 contain instances of data fabrication.
All 4 seem to be in Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
Indeed they are. And he has another 44 papers there so these may not be the last…
Indeed, we left the title out accidentally. Fixed, thanks.
I wonder if they have seen the entire report (which was stated to reach 60,000 pages) or whether this decision was made based on the executive summary. Has anyone seen the full report?
I have seen a truck carrying this report on Google Earth.
Leave out the word “disgraced” in reports like this; you will achieve greater credibility as an objective source of information, without failing to convey anything.
Agree that “disgraced” is a subjective term, BUT it aptly describes Dr Das’ state of grace at the present time. Can’t argue that he’s still in our good graces after 145 counts of misconduct and 60,000 pages have fallen on him.
The question isn’t whether he has been disgraced. The question is whether labelling him “disgraced” adds any information. Consider this:
“…the UConn researcher found by the university to have committed 145 counts of misconduct.”
What new information do I give you if I insert “disgraced”?
The retraction notices are potentially misleading. When they put together “This follows the published investigation by the University of Connecticut Health Center into Professor Dipak K. Das” and “investigation has determined that images appearing in Figs. 7 and 8 contain instances of data fabrication”, it implies that Das himself had fabricated the images. It might be true, but given the scale of the fraud, it is very unlikely. He might have created the working culture conducive to fraud, but there could have been very many actual fraudsters.
Data fabrication is, by all means, NO DIFFERENT to money fabrication.
In both cases the fraudster intends to deceive the public for personal gain.
When both offences will be treated equally?
it can be robbery as well….
Totally agree with you.
Plagiarism, for example, IS by all means ROBBERY.
I can not understand Why robbing say $ 200 form a small shop is considered robbery by everybody, but robbing one’s life’s work (i.e. his/her intellectual property) is NOT considered robbery?