Category: image manipulation

Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

jci1212A group of cardiology researchers formerly of the University of Cologne has retracted two papers, after investigations into allegations of misconduct led to an admission of guilt by one of the lab’s junior members.

Here’s the first retraction, for “Connexin 43 acts as a cytoprotective mediator of signal transduction by stimulating mitochondrial KATP channels in mouse cardiomyocytes,” published last week in the Journal of Clinical Investigation: Continue reading Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

Odd: Retractions 18 and 19 for Dipak Das, and a new paper in the same journal, as if nothing were amiss

Dipak Das, the resveratrol researcher found guilty of more than 100 counts of misconduct by the University of Connecticut, has two more retractions for his resume. But that’s not the most interesting part of this post, so keep reading after the notices.

Both retractions appeared in the October 2012 issue of the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. Here’s the first notice: Continue reading Odd: Retractions 18 and 19 for Dipak Das, and a new paper in the same journal, as if nothing were amiss

Neuroscience paper retracted after HHMI investigation finds scientist copied images without permission

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) asked a journal to retract a paper once it became clear that some of the images in it were actually from a different HHMI lab.

Here’s the notice, from the Journal of Comparative Neurology: Continue reading Neuroscience paper retracted after HHMI investigation finds scientist copied images without permission

University disciplines researchers who study toxins used in GMO crops; at least seven corrections to follow

Two biotechnology researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico have been disciplined for manipulating images in 11 papers.

La Jornada, one of Mexico City’s largest newspapers, reports that Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, a wife and husband team who study the Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacteria toxins used in GMO crops to fight pests,were found guilty of “manipulaciones inapropiadas y categóricamente reprobables” — which translates roughly, according to Google Translate, as “inappropriate and categorically reprehensible manipulation.” Continue reading University disciplines researchers who study toxins used in GMO crops; at least seven corrections to follow

Five retractions for cancer research team for manipulated figures

The International Journal of Cancer, a Wiley title, has retracted a pair of articles from a group at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, for image manipulation.

The papers, from the lab of Adi Gazdar, the W. Ray Wallace Distinguished Chair in Molecular Oncology Research who is known for his massive collection of human cancer cells, were published in 2005.

The first was titled “Aberrant methylation of Reprimo in human malignancies.” According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Five retractions for cancer research team for manipulated figures

ORI sanctions former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher for faking dozens of images in 10 papers

Eric J. Smart, via U Kentucky

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has come down hard on a Eric J. Smart, an NIH-funded former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher who faked data in ten published papers and seven grant applications over the past decade.

Smart studies cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. According to the notice in the Federal Register: Continue reading ORI sanctions former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher for faking dozens of images in 10 papers

Image correction in Current Biology for Harvard’s Sam Lee

The work of Sam W. Lee, a cancer biologist at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital, has come under fire at Science Fraud lately over concerns about the possible reuse of images in his group’s published studies.

Turns out there’s some there, there after all. The journal Current Biology has issued a pretty thorny correction for one of Lee’s 2006 articles, “RhoE Is a Pro-Survival p53 Target Gene that Inhibits ROCK I-Mediated Apoptosis in Response to Genotoxic Stress,” citing multiple issues with its figures: Continue reading Image correction in Current Biology for Harvard’s Sam Lee

The Nature paper that required three corrections

courtesy Nature

In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In Nature, apparently, you can stay at the plate after three swings-and-misses.

That’s what we concluded from a Corrigendum in last week’s issue, for “CD95 promotes tumour growth,” originally published in May 2010 and now corrected not once, not twice, but three times.

Here was the first Corrigendum, from March 2011: Continue reading The Nature paper that required three corrections

ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct

A prominent researcher at the University of Florida is under federal investigation for research misconduct and has lost at least one paper as a result of the fraud.

The researcher, Nasser Chegini, was a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the U of Florida until about six months ago, when he retired, according to the chair’s office. Nasser has received at least $4 million in federal grant funding, according to the university.

The retracted paper, “MicroRNA 21: response to hormonal therapies and regulatory function in leiomyoma, transformed leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma cells,” was published in 2010 by Molecular Human Reproduction. The authors were Qun Pan and Xiaoping Luo and Chegini.

As the notice explains: Continue reading ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct

Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons

We’ve written about mega-corrections that allow scientists to retrace virtually all of their steps yet preserve their publications as supposedly legitimate. And we’ve seen plenty of corrections that allow authors to assert that their conclusions are correct when evidently important pieces of data are themselves unreliable.

Now comes a correction that seems to us to strike the right chords, given the fact that editors are to a large extent at the mercy of authors in these situations. Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons