Category: australia retractions

The University of Newcastle in Australia is investigating the work of two prominent skin cancer researchers, Retraction Watch has learned. 

Commenters on PubPeer have posted questions about the data in 42 papers by Peter Hersey and Xu Dong Zhang, both well-known in Australian melanoma research. So far, two of the papers have been retracted and four corrected. 

The University of Newcastle’s head of research and innovation confirmed that the university has launched an investigation into both experts, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. That official has a complex history of her own: a paper of hers was retracted in 2013, leading to the return of a substantial amount of grant funding. 

Continue reading University of Newcastle investigating top melanoma researchers

A neurology researcher in Australia is no longer employed at his former university in the midst of a research misconduct investigation, Retraction Watch has learned. And the work of a co-author at another institution also is being assessed for possible research misconduct after sleuths alerted the university to comments on PubPeer about potential data issues in his papers. 

The retracted article, “Changes in Cathepsin D and Beclin-1 mRNA and protein expression by the excitotoxin quinolinic acid in human astrocytes and neurons,” was published in Metabolic Brain Disease in 2014 and has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

The journal’s editor-in-chief, Gregory Konat, retracted the paper because several of the western blots appeared to be duplicated and he no longer had confidence in the results, according to the retraction notice. The six authors are researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Macquarie University and St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney. 

Continue reading Exclusive: Researcher has “ceased employment” at university amid investigation and retraction 

A cancer immunologist who as of 2017 was “the most highly cited immunologist in Australia” has “seriously breached Codes relating to responsible research conduct,” according to his former employer.

QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane “has commissioned an independent external investigation after a number of complaints relating to the research conduct of a former employee Professor Mark Smyth,” the institute said in a statement.

The external investigation, led by a retired appeals court judge, Robert Gotterson, followed a preliminary investigation, according to QIMR Berghofer, which said it “has referred the findings to the Crime and Corruption Commission in accordance with its legislative obligations.” The institute has “also organised for an independent review into a broad range of issues arising out of the Panel Report” that will be conducted by former federal court judge Bruce Lander.

Continue reading Highly cited cancer immunologist “seriously breached” research conduct code: Australia institute

The University of Tasmania has cleared one of its scientists of wrongdoing after she was accused by the Australian logging industry of publishing flawed research linking logging to increased forest flammability and of having a conflict of interest with an environmental group.

The university then implemented mandatory research integrity training for its school of geography, which Jennifer Sanger, the researcher who worked in that school, suggests is due to the university’s “very strong ties with the forestry industry.”

In May 2020, Sanger published a study titled, “Propensities of Old Growth, Mature and Regrowth Wet Eucalypt Forest, and Eucalyptus Nitens Plantation, to Burn during Wildfire and Suffer Fire-Induced Crown Death,” in the journal Fire. The study found that logged forests were generally more flammable than those left unlogged, a finding that has been upheld in recent research.

On August 13, Sanger requested that Fire pull the study, according to Alistair Smith, the journal’s editor-in-chief. Sanger asked for a retraction after a reader went through the study’s dataset and found issues with its analysis, she explained in an email:

Continue reading University clears scientist of logging industry’s misconduct allegations

In September 2019 Nicola Smith, a molecular pharmacologist in Australia, faced a brutal decision. She’d realized that she’d made a mistake — or rather, failed to catch a mistake in her group’s research before the crippling error was published — in two academic articles which were the culmination of years of work. And she could either tell the world, or pretend it never happened.

Her students had been having trouble reproducing lab data. Once she looked into it and she figured out why, she told them, “Guys, you’re not going to believe this.” A cloning error had ensured the experiments were doomed to fail from the start.

If she came clean, she knew that at least one of the articles would most likely be retracted and she’d have to live with a lasting mark on her and her team’s record. “What can I do to minimize the impact” on her two students? Smith thought at the time.

In particular, Tony Ngo,who was first author on both papers and had recently finished a PhD in her lab, was looking forward to a future in academia. Smith was terrified of tarnishing his prospects.

What was to stop her from just keeping quiet about it?

Continue reading “The most horrific time of my career.” What do you do when you realize years of your published work is built on an error?

Three years after work from his lab was the subject of “serious allegations,” a professor at Deakin University in Australia has left his post, Retraction Watch has learned.

In an October 6, 2020 letter to staff at Deakin’s School of Medicine obtained by Retraction Watch, Dean Gary Rogers writes that Jagat Kanwar, who joined the school’s faculty in 2006, would be leaving effective October 16. Rogers continues:

Continue reading Researcher leaves post at Australian university years after papers come under scrutiny

Science represents perhaps the single greatest accomplishment of humankind. Of all human institutions, organisations and establishments, science has proven an effective tool for driving progress. It is inherently self-correcting, and tolerates — and even demands — skepticism, challenge and self-critique. Few human institutions can make a similar claim.

However, there is increasing recognition and concern that current research incentives are perverse, and promote behaviors that undermine the very foundations of science.  Under the guise of altruism and independence, the self-serving, self-promoting nature of academic science today is typically neither declared nor acknowledged.   The dispassionate, objective analysis and presentation of data is frequently lost, as results are seen as personal (“my data”) and subservient to a personal or political agenda. As a consequence, scientists are losing their authority to speak, genuine experts are often disparaged and ignored, and our society is diminished.

Continue reading Better (publishing) background checks: A way toward greater integrity in science