Rejected paper pops up elsewhere after one journal suspected manipulation

Figure 1F

In the autumn of 2022, a researcher in Turkey was reviewing a paper for a cardiology journal when an image of a Western blot caught her eye: A hardly visible pair of “unusual” lighter pixels seemed out of place. Magnification only bolstered her suspicion that something was off.

“This image made me think that the bands were cut one by one and pasted on a membrane background,” Şenay Akin, of Hacettepe University in Ankara, wrote in her comments to the editor of Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, a Springer Nature journal. “If this is the case, it indicates a manipulation [of] the results of this study.”

The editor, Yochai Birnbaum of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, made a note to check the figure, adding below Akin’s comments in the editorial-management system: “I agree with the reviewer. It could be that the I/R band was manipulated.”

Akin followed up with Birnbaum to ask why the paper was eventually rejected. He wrote: 

We emailed the corresponding author using his email addressed to ask clarification and data concerning the western blots. As he did not responded, I finally rejected the manuscript

We asked Birnbaum whether the rejection was related to the alleged manipulation, but he and a spokesperson for Springer Nature, which publishes the journal, declined to comment, citing confidentiality concerns. 

A few months after the manuscript was rejected by Birnbaum’s journal, however, it appeared in the pages of the European Journal of Pharmacology, an Elsevier journal, under the same title, “Inhibition of MALT1 reduces ferroptosis in rat hearts following ischemia/reperfusion via enhancing the Nrf2/SLC7A11 pathway.” 

The image Akin had flagged in the rejected paper “had been modified” in the published version, she told us, softening the suspicious features in the original. Some of the error bars and P-values in the paper also differed from the material she had reviewed.

Akin took it upon herself to alert the journal’s editor-in-chief, Frank Redegeld of Utrecht University, in the Netherlands, to her misgivings. But Redegeld dismissed her concerns. 

In an email to Retraction Watch, Redegeld wrote that he had investigated the allegations about the Western blots with “very sensitive AI image analysis software.” 

“The analysis did not detect any issues with the western blot images as published,” he told us. “Therefore, we have no reason to assume the published figure was manipulated and we have closed this case accordingly.”

Ya-Qian Jiang of The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University in Changsha, China, lead author of the paper and one of the authors credited for conducting the experiments, told us by email:“We actually provided all the raw data for [the Western blots] as the supplemental materials in the process of review.” Jiang also sent us the image purported to be the original Figure 1F.

“Anyone [who] has the hand-on experience in doing WB should understand why he/she does not use the full-size membrane to incubate with the antibody and why there [are] some peculiar features — haloes around the bands,” Jiang said.

But David Sanders, a scientific sleuth and biologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, said the blots published in the European Journal of Pharmacology had “clear discontinuities,” adding that “some of the bands appear to be pasted on to other bands as background.” 

While Sanders could not rule out legitimate image processing had caused the anomalies, magnifying the image revealed clear rectangular outlines for the bands that were posted on a background, he told Retraction Watch. 

“The addition of those smudges in the upper left hand corners of each of the lanes is certainly not consistent with this being a normal immunoblot image,” Sanders said.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly updatefollow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Exclusive: NYU cancer center director suspended

Benjamin Neel

The director of one the nation’s premier cancer centers has been suspended amid concerns over several of his papers – but he tells Retraction Watch it is unrelated to comments about that work on PubPeer. 

An email Wednesday to employees at New York University’s medical center – and a subsequent message to staff at the institution’s Perlmutter Cancer Center – explained that Benjamin Neel, the former director of the center, had been suspended. 

The letter, signed by Steven Abramson, a rheumatologist and executive vice president at NYU Langone Health, did not state the reason for the move:  

Dear Perlmutter Cancer Center Staff,

I’m writing to inform you that, effective immediately, Benjamin Neel, MD, PhD, has been suspended from his role as director of the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Professor of Oncology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, will serve as interim director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Thank you to Dr. Weber for stepping into this interim role.

Several of Neel’s papers have been the subject of scrutiny on PubPeer dating back more than eight years. Commenters have pointed out issues with figures in the articles, complaints to which Neel frequently responded. None of the articles has yet been retracted.  

Neel told us that the suspension has nothing to do with PubPeer but that he could not comment further.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Exclusive: Former associate dean and ‘highly cited researcher’ was demoted by university

A former associate dean for research at the University of Wyoming who was named as one of Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers for 2021 was sanctioned by the university years ago, Retraction Watch has learned. Jun Ren, who studies the heart and diabetes, left Wyoming sometime in 2019 or 2020, according to a press release noting … Continue reading Exclusive: Former associate dean and ‘highly cited researcher’ was demoted by university

Extensive correction adds to five flagged papers for UPenn professor

A UPenn professor now has six papers with a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in two PLOS journals after one published an extensive correction to a 2018 paper.  The correction adds to two retractions and three expressions of concern for papers in PLOS Pathogens and PLOS ONE with Erle Robertson, a microbiology professor and … Continue reading Extensive correction adds to five flagged papers for UPenn professor

Medical school dean up to five retractions

A kidney research group led by a medical school dean has accumulated five retractions.  All five came within the last year, after commenters on PubPeer pointed out image similarities.  Joseph I. Shapiro, vice president and dean of the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine of Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia, is an author on … Continue reading Medical school dean up to five retractions

Urology researcher under investigation for double-dipping has another paper retracted

A urology researcher who stepped down from his post as department chair after an institutional investigation prompted by Retraction Watch reporting has lost another paper.  The article apparently was not flagged during a misconduct investigation, but a PubPeer commenter noted overlapping images in August 2021.  Hari Koul had been interim chair of the department of … Continue reading Urology researcher under investigation for double-dipping has another paper retracted

The “internet may be a challenging venue”: Biomedical engineering group up to four retractions

A group of biomedical engineering researchers has lost four papers because they appear to be recycling their images from other papers.  The retractions for the group, from Banaras Hindu University in India, span papers published between 2011 and 2014. The retractions began in 2020, after anonymous PubPeer commenters pointed out the similarities between images. The … Continue reading The “internet may be a challenging venue”: Biomedical engineering group up to four retractions

Journals acknowledge that a critical “reader” has a name: Elisabeth Bik

Followers of this blog know that “a reader” seems to be the force behind a huge number of retractions – and that, despite the apparent unwillingness of journals to name them, they are real people. One of the more prolific “readers” is Elisabeth Bik, the data sleuth whose efforts to identify problematic images has led … Continue reading Journals acknowledge that a critical “reader” has a name: Elisabeth Bik

University of Glasgow ‘in discussions to retract’ seven papers, confirming Retraction Watch reporting

The University of Glasgow is “in discussions to retract” seven papers by a pharmacology researcher who worked there for more than 25 years, after it learned of allegations on PubPeer by pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis. The development confirms reporting by Retraction Watch earlier this month. In that post, we wrote:  The story begins in December … Continue reading University of Glasgow ‘in discussions to retract’ seven papers, confirming Retraction Watch reporting

Journal mulls expression of concern for Cassava Sciences paper

A journal is considering issuing an expression of concern for a 2005 paper by authors tied to a company that’s now under investigation for fraud, Retraction Watch has learned.  The article, “Ultra-low-dose naloxone suppresses opioid tolerance, dependence and associated changes in mu opioid receptor–G protein coupling and Gβγ signaling,” was written by a group linked … Continue reading Journal mulls expression of concern for Cassava Sciences paper