Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00202-9

IF: 64.8

2024-01-26

Nature

Abstract:Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny. Nature talks to Sholto David about his process for flagging image manipulation and his tips for scientists under scrutiny.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Daily briefing: Meet the data sleuth who spurred the Dana-Farber retractions

Flora Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00251-0

IF: 64.8

2024-01-25

Nature

Abstract:‘There’s a pretty simple way to prevent all of this,’ he says. Plus, troubled times at Fermilab and when whales walked the Earth.

multidisciplinary sciences
Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Harold C. Sox,Drummond Rennie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123

IF: 39.2

2006-04-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The scientific literature is a record of the search for truth. Publication of faked data diverts this search. The scientific community has a duty to warn people to ignore an article containing faked data and must try to prevent inadvertent citation of it. The scientific community accomplishes these tasks by publishing a retraction and linking it to the fraudulent article's citation in electronic indexes of the medical literature, such as PubMed. This mechanism is far from perfect, as shown by a case history of scientific fraud perpetrated by Eric Poehlman, PhD. His institution notified 3 journals that they had published tainted articles. Two journals failed to retract. The third journal retracted immediately, but other authors continued to cite the retracted article. Another duty of the scientific community is to verify the integrity of other articles published by the author of a fraudulent article. This task falls to the author's institution and requires coauthors to vouch for their article's integrity by convincing institutional investigators that the suspect author could not have altered the raw scientific data from their study. Two universities are currently investigating Poehlman's published research. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature requires governmental institutions that have the authority to investigate and punish guilty scientists and requires that research institutions investigate alleged fraud. It requires journal editors to issue a retraction when they learn that their journal has published a tainted article. It requires research institutions to accept their responsibility to investigate every article published by a scientist who has published even 1 fraudulent article. Finally, it requires authors to take pains to avoid citing retracted articles and to issue a correction when they inadvertently cite a retracted article.

medicine, general & internal
Spoof Research Paper is Accepted by 157 Journals

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5975

2013-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:A spoof medical paper full of easily detectable flaws was submitted in a sting operation to 304 open access journals and accepted by more than half of them. The results, reported in Science 1 by journalist John Bohannon, reveal “an emerging Wild West in academic publishing,” he says, with mushrooming numbers of new journals profiting from the open access model, in which authors rather than readers pay the cost of publication. Bohannon invented the names of authors and affiliations—such as Ocorrafoo Cobange of Wassee Institute of Medicine—and submitted in their names variations of the same basic paper claiming to have found anticancer properties in a molecule extracted from a …
Authors move to retract discredited Alzheimer's study

Charles Piller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq8855

IF: 56.9

2024-06-07

Science

Abstract:The high-profile paper contains manipulated images, senior author acknowledges

multidisciplinary sciences
'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8

IF: 64.8

2024-10-15

Nature

Abstract:A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan. A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan.

multidisciplinary sciences
Abstracts Often Do Not Accurately Reflect Trial Results, Study Shows

N. Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f179

2013-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:Bias and “spin” are commonplace in the reporting of trials of breast cancer treatments, a Canadian team has found. When trials failed to meet their headline objectives, authors often found positive results among the small print, and the severity of adverse effects was often understated. Authors and journals needed to do better and readers to be alert to such subtle manipulation, say Ian Tannock and colleagues from Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. The team searched for phase III trials of treatments of breast cancer between 1995 and 2011, finding 164 that met their criteria. They focused on the abstract—the only part of study …
Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Zhang Qin,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y

IF: 3.801

2022-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Problematic publications and scientific misconduct have raised global concern, in which the authors have played a key role. Since research misconduct occurs more frequently in the clinical medicine field, we took this field as an example to explore productivity patterns, collaboration, and scientific careers of authors at the individual level. The application of Lotka's law (C = 0.883, n = 3.597) showed a loose collaboration network and a predominant aggregation of authors with multiple retracted publications. Most authors were retracted only once while a small group of authors had most retracted publications. Authors with most retractions appeared to have stable collaboration with certain individuals. The occurrences of falsification and ethical issues increased with the higher involvement of authors with multiple retracted publications. Two typical publication patterns of retractions in different stages of scientific career have been found: (1) committing scientific misconduct in the early career, mainly for promotion, and (2) participating in scientific misconduct when mature in the career, most due to neglecting the duty as a supervisor. The team culture, regulations, publication policies, and joint efforts by the scientific community have a direct influence on the occurrences of scientific misconduct. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to prevent scientific misconduct and to strengthen scientific norms and integrity.
Genuine images in 2024

H Holden Thorp,H. Holden Thorp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn7530

IF: 56.9

2024-01-05

Science

Abstract:In recent years, the research community has become increasingly concerned with issues involving the manipulation of images in scientific papers. Some of these alterations—involving images from experimental techniques such as microscopy, flow cytometry, and western blots—are inadvertent and may not change the conclusions of papers. But in rare cases, some are done deliberately to mislead readers. Image sleuths who can detect these alterations, like the scientific integrity consultant Elisabeth Bik, have risen to prominence, as has the website PubPeer, where many of the detected flaws are posted. High-profile incidents, such as one involving the laboratory of former Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, have eroded public confidence in science and harmed careers of investigators who missed doctored images coming from their own laboratories. To address these problems, in 2024, the Science family of journals is adopting the use of Proofig, an artificial intelligence (AI)–powered image-analysis tool, to detect altered images across all six of the journals.

multidisciplinary sciences
Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review

Jian Gao,Tao Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/546033a

IF: 64.8

2017-01-01

Nature

Abstract:In the wake of large-scale retraction scandals, we urge scientific publishers to be more proactive in stamping out fake peer-reviewing practices. They should work with editors, authors and research institutes to implement an effective system of precautions and penalties. Fraudulent peer review can arise when editors rely on authors' recommended reviewers. These names are often genuine but have a false e-mail address that enables the authors to write a favourable review of their own paper. Springer Nature, also the publisher of Nature, this year retracted 107 papers from one of its journals on the basis of fake peer review (see T. Stigbrand Tumor Biol. doi.org/b7gg; 2017). Two years ago, it retracted 64 articles in 10 of its journals on similar grounds (see Nature doi.org/b7gh; 2015). In our view, retracting such papers is not enough. Editors need to double-check the authenticity of potential reviewers and insist that authors provide academic identities for their suggested reviewers, including institutional e-mail addresses, ORCID identifiers and Scopus Author IDs. Journals should confidentially share each other's databases of falsified reviewers' details and of offending authors. Publishers could then reject new submissions from those authors for a set period. National academic committees and research institutes might consider revoking research funding for such authors and demoting them. Subscribe to comments
Rooting out scientific misconduct

Ivan Oransky,Barbara Redman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn9352

IF: 56.9

2024-01-12

Science

Abstract:Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations—the first since 2005—have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.

multidisciplinary sciences
How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

Sumeet Kulkarni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00875-2

IF: 64.8

2024-03-30

Nature

Abstract:Scientists compiling a review scan more than 1,000 papers and find troubling images in nearly 20%. Scientists compiling a review scan more than 1,000 papers and find troubling images in nearly 20%.

multidisciplinary sciences
"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.604934

2024-07-26

Abstract:Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Biology
RETRACTION: Multi-Stimuli Nanocomposite Therapeutic: Docetaxel Targeted Delivery and Synergies in Treatment of Human Breast Cancer Tumor

R Taheri-Ledari,W Zhang,M Radmanesh,S S Mirmohammadi,A Maleki,N Cathcart,V Kitaev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202406237

IF: 13.3

2024-08-12

Small

Abstract:Small 2020, 16, 2002733 DOI: 10.1002/smll.202002733 The above article, published online on 18 September 2020 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editor-in-Chief, Neville Compton; and Wiley-VCH GmbH. Following publication, concerns were raised by a third-party regarding the appearance of Figures 7d, 11a and 12a. The subsequent investigation uncovered inappropriate duplication of images (panels of Figures 7d and 12a) between this and other articles that were previously published in a different scientific context elsewhere and the manipulation of images in Figure 11a. The investigation also revealed that the animal experiments were neither conducted at, nor received ethical approval from the Department of Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Given the extent of the identified issues, the editors have decided to retract the article.
Why a publisher retracted abortion-pill studies cited in a case set for the Supreme Court

Mariana Lenharo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00556-0

IF: 64.8

2024-02-28

Nature

Abstract:Nature spoke to researchers about the flaws that triggered the retractions. They say these papers are just the tip of the iceberg. Nature spoke to researchers about the flaws that triggered the retractions. They say these papers are just the tip of the iceberg.

multidisciplinary sciences
Publisher Correction: on the Issue of Transparency and Reproducibility in Nanomedicine.

Hon S. Leong,Kimberly S. Butler,C. Jeffrey Brinker,May Azzawi,Steve Conlan,Christine Dufès,Andrew Owen,Steve Rannard,Chris Scott,Chunying Chen,Marina A. Dobrovolskaia,Serguei V. Kozlov,Adriele Prina-Mello,Ruth Schmid,Peter Wick,Fanny Caputo,Patrick Boisseau,Rachael M. Crist,Scott E. McNeil,Bengt Fadeel,Lang Tran,Steffen Foss Hansen,Nanna B. Hartmann,Lauge P. W. Clausen,Lars M. Skjolding,Anders Baun,Marlene Ågerstrand,Zhen Gu,Dimitrios A. Lamprou,Clare Hoskins,Leaf Huang,Wantong Song,Huiliang Cao,Xuanyong Liu,Klaus D. Jandt,Wen Jiang,Betty Y. S. Kim,Korin E. Wheeler,Andrew J. Chetwynd,Iseult Lynch,Seyed Moein Moghimi,André Nel,Tian Xia,Paul S. Weiss,Bruno Sarmento,José das Neves,Hélder A. Santos,Luis Santos,Samir Mitragotri,Steve Little,Dan Peer,Mansoor M. Amiji,Maria José Alonso,Alke Petri-Fink,Sandor Balog,Aaron Lee,Barbara Drasler,Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser,Stefan Wilhelm,Handan Acar,Roger G. Harrison,Chuanbin Mao,Priyabrata Mukherjee,Rajagopal Ramesh,Lacey R. McNally,Sara Busatto,Joy Wolfram,Paolo Bergese,Mauro Ferrari,Ronnie H. Fang,Liangfang Zhang,Jie Zheng,Chuanqi Peng,Bujie Du,Mengxiao Yu,Danielle M. Charron,Gang Zheng,Chiara Pastore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0496-9

2019-01-01

Abstract:An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.
Retracted: Effect of Previous Cancer History on Survival of Patients with Different Subtypes of Breast Cancer

BioMed Research International

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9760406

2024-01-11

BioMed Research International

Abstract:This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: (1) Discrepancies in scope (2) Discrepancies in the description of the research reported (3) Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described (4) Inappropriate citations (5) Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article (6) Manipulated or compromised peer review

biotechnology & applied microbiology,medicine, research & experimental
Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum

Abu Bakkar Siddique,Brian Shaw,Johanna Dwyer,David A Fields,Kevin Fontaine,David Hand,Randy Schekman,Jeffrey Alberts,Julie Locher,David B Allison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00517-w

2024-10-16

Abstract:The tutelage of our mentors as scientists included the analogy that writing a good scientific paper was an exercise in storytelling that omitted unessential details that did not move the story forward or that detracted from the overall message. However, the advice to not get lost in the details had an important flaw. In science, it is the many details of the data themselves and the methods used to generate and analyze them that give conclusions their probative meaning. Facts may sometimes slow or distract from the clarity, tidiness, intrigue, or flow of the narrative, but nevertheless they are important for the assessment of what was done, the trustworthiness of the science, and the meaning of the findings. Nevertheless, many critical elements and facts about research studies may be omitted from the narrative and become hidden from scholarly scrutiny. We describe a "baker's dozen" shortfalls in which such elements that are pertinent to evaluating the validity of scientific studies are sometimes hidden in reports of the work. Such shortfalls may be intentional or unintentional or lie somewhere in between. Additionally, shortfalls may occur at the level of the individual or an institution or of the entire system itself. We conclude by proposing countermeasures to these shortfalls.
Overt Scientific Bias and Clandestine Acts by Trusted Scientists: The Flawed Application of the Linear No-threshold Model

John J. Cardarelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000001844

2024-07-26

Health Physics

Abstract:NOTE TO READERS: For ease of reading, links to supplementary material are shown throughout as "Supplementary Digital Content"; to access the material, simply click on the link. Footnotes are listed in numerical order in the Acknowledgments section.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences,nuclear science & technology
Retracted: Integrative Nomogram of Computed Tomography Radiomics, Clinical, and Tumor Immune Features for Analysis of Disease-Free Survival of NSCLC Patients with Surgery

Journal Of Oncology,Journal of Oncology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9832601

IF: 4.501

2023-08-04

Journal of Oncology

Abstract:This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: (1) Discrepancies in scope (2) Discrepancies in the description of the research reported (3) Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described (4) Inappropriate citations (5) Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article (6) Peer-review manipulation

oncology
Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines

Jennifer A. Byrne,Cyril Labbé

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2209-6

IF: 3.801

2016-12-28

Scientometrics

Abstract:Comparing 5 publications from China that described knockdowns of the human TPD52L2 gene in human cancer cell lines identified unexpected similarities between these publications, flaws in experimental design, and mis-matches between some described experiments and the reported results. Following communications with journal editors, two of these TPD52L2 publications have been retracted. One retraction notice stated that while the authors claimed that the data were original, the experiments had been out-sourced to a biotechnology company. Using search engine queries, automatic text-analysis, different similarity measures, and further visual inspection, we identified 48 examples of highly similar papers describing single gene knockdowns in 1–2 human cancer cell lines that were all published by investigators from China. The incorrect use of a particular TPD52L2 shRNA sequence as a negative or non-targeting control was identified in 30/48 (63%) of these publications, using a combination of Google Scholar searches and visual inspection. Overall, these results suggest that some publications describing the effects of single gene knockdowns in human cancer cell lines may include the results of experiments that were not performed by the authors. This has serious implications for the validity of such results, and for their application in future research.

information science & library science,computer science, interdisciplinary applications

Dana-Farber retractions: meet the blogger who spotted problems in dozens of cancer papers

Daily briefing: Meet the data sleuth who spurred the Dana-Farber retractions

Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Spoof Research Paper is Accepted by 157 Journals

Authors move to retract discredited Alzheimer's study

'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Abstracts Often Do Not Accurately Reflect Trial Results, Study Shows

Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Genuine images in 2024

Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review

Rooting out scientific misconduct

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

RETRACTION: Multi-Stimuli Nanocomposite Therapeutic: Docetaxel Targeted Delivery and Synergies in Treatment of Human Breast Cancer Tumor

Why a publisher retracted abortion-pill studies cited in a case set for the Supreme Court

Publisher Correction: on the Issue of Transparency and Reproducibility in Nanomedicine.

Retracted: Effect of Previous Cancer History on Survival of Patients with Different Subtypes of Breast Cancer

Hidden: A Baker's Dozen Ways in Which Research Reporting is Less Transparent than it Could be and Suggestions for Implementing Einstein's Dictum

Overt Scientific Bias and Clandestine Acts by Trusted Scientists: The Flawed Application of the Linear No-threshold Model

Retracted: Integrative Nomogram of Computed Tomography Radiomics, Clinical, and Tumor Immune Features for Analysis of Disease-Free Survival of NSCLC Patients with Surgery

Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines