Retraction Watch

Weekend reads: Grad student who alleged discrimination dismissed; academics who play dumb; when papers cite predatory works

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

A rare permanent ban on U.S. federal research funding for a lab tech at the center of the Duke case;
A look at whether 61 likely retractions for a controversial psychologist is a low estimate;
A university giving the task of clearing a researcher of misconduct to one of his frequent co-authors;
A glaring conflict of interest for the academic editor of a paper published in PLOS ONE.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Stem cell researchers have papers retracted for image manipulation

A group of dentistry researchers in Japan, whose work on stem cells has been the subject of an institutional investigation, have now lost two papers in PLOS ONE for image problems.

The authors, from Aichi Gakuin University in Nagoya, were led by Makio Mogi, a medicinal biochemist at the school. Mogi asked for at least one of the retractions.

The first article, published in 2013, was titled “Matrix metalloproteinase-3 in odontoblastic cells derived from Ips cells: unique proliferation response as odontoblastic cells derived from ES cells.” It has been cited 18 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. According to the notice:

Feds ban ex-Duke lab tech from funding after she faked data linked to 60 NIH grants

Erin Potts-Kant, who lost her job as a researcher at Duke University in 2013 for embezzling more than $25,000 from the institution, has received a rare permanent Federal funding ban from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) after investigators concluded that she had used fabricated data in nearly 120 figures.

The case has been ongoing since 2013. Potts-Kant and a former colleague, William Michael Foster, were named in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit which alleged that they, with the knowledge of their institution, had used bogus data to collect hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants. Earlier this year, Duke settled the case for $112.5 million, of which nearly $34 million went to the whistleblower, Joseph Thomas.

According to an ORI finding issued today, investigators determined that Potts-Kant

PLOS ONE realizes an academic editor had a conflict of interest that the publisher says it now tries harder to avoid

A group of genetics researchers in Italy has lost a 2014 paper in PLOS ONE for a range of image problems and a glaring conflict of interest.

The article, titled “Neuronal differentiation dictates estrogen-dependent survival and ERK1/2 kinetic by means of caveolin-1,” came from a team led by Luca Colucci-D’Amato, of the Second University of Naples.

The retraction notice in PLOS ONE lays out a raft of issues with the paper, for example:

61 retractions for controversial psychologist Hans Eysenck? That’s a significant underestimate, says his biographer

In a recent Retraction Watch guest post on the “Eysenck affair,” James Heathers notes the extraordinary possibility that as many as 61 Hans Eysenck publications might be retracted. I believe this figure is a significant underestimate.

This reckoning has been a long time coming. The issues surrounding Eysenck’s 1980s/1990s collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and their unbelievable results linking personality to health outcomes have been known for decades. Many eminent researchers, including Tony Pelosi and Louis Appleby, had lined up to criticise this research even while it was still ongoing.

In 2010, I published a lengthy biography of Eysenck, Playing with fire, that detailed the context for this collaboration. In the final full chapter, I explained what prompted Eysenck to team up with this outsider figure and laid bare the extent of Eysenck’s deep and longstanding relationship with the tobacco industry. It was backed by extensive archival research and interviews with key players (including two days with Grossarth-Maticek). I had hoped it would provoke a reappraisal and remedial action. But the impact was minimal.

Final reminder: We’re phasing out one of our email alerts. Here’s how to keep up with Retraction Watch.

As some Retraction Watch readers have known, we’ve had off-and-on technological issues with the site. At least in some cases, those problems seem to have been due to DDOS attacks. We’ve been taking steps to ensure the site’s reliability, and we’re taking another one.

Since our inception in 2010, we’ve offered a way to receive an email alert about every new post as it is published. We know that for some readers, such alerts are the preferred way to learn of new posts. However, the various ways to do that all create vulnerabilities on the site, which in turn offer bots ways to compromise us.

As a result, we’re phasing out our email per post subscription, the one that you may have signed up for using the “follow” button that appears on the bottom of your screen. At the end of October, we will no longer offer it.

No ‘possible fraudulent explanation’: Frequent co-author tasked with clearing colleagues of image manipulation

A journal has allowed a group of researchers in Italy to correct a 2016 paper with questionable images after a faculty member in their institution — and a frequent co-author of the group’s — said his investigation found no reason to doubt their integrity.

The article, “Arg tyrosine kinase modulates TGF-β1 production in human renal tubular cells under high-glucose conditions,” appeared in the Journal of Cell Science. Earlier this year, a poster on PubPeer pointed out “problematic similarities” with figures in the article.

The similarities evidently didn’t trouble Fulvio Magni, a professor of biochemistry at Milano-Bicocca who was tasked with investigating the case. Magni, we think we should note, has also been a co-author with members of the research group (see here, here, here and here, for a few examples).

According to the correction:

Former Northwestern psychology prof has paper subjected to an expression of concern

A paper by Ping Dong, a former researcher at Northwestern who left her post less than a year after having a paper retracted from Psychological Science, has been subjected to an expression of concern.

The 2017 paper, in the Journal of Consumer Research, claimed to show that “Witnessing Moral Violations Increases Conformity in Consumption.” It has been cited just twice, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Knowledge.

The expression of concern reads:

Weekend reads: Scientist loses job after 30 retractions; breast cancer researcher committed misconduct; “two crashes” at Duke

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

an author irked about “science by tweet” after his paper is flagged;
an author irked by Elsevier’s decision to retract nine of his papers for fake peer review;
a researcher who is no longer in his job following a misconduct finding;
the retraction of a paper questioning the link between HIV and AIDS years after criticism.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

‘Misguided and ineffectual’: Publisher offers mea culpa in retraction of paper questioning link between HIV and AIDS

Anyone who lives near or has ever driven past a cattle ranch knows this much: No amount of perfume can mask the smell of bullshit. If you want proof, and you don’t have a car, just ask the editors of Frontiers in Public Health.

In 2014, the journal published a paper by a researcher in Texas, Patricia Goodson, who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS. In response to the predictable outcry, the journal blinked, sort of.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: