Office Of Research Integrity Research Articles

Retraction.

Retraction: "Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex" by Keleshian VL, Modi HR, Rapoport SI, Rao JS. The above article from Journal of Neurochemistry, published online on 17 February 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) and in volume 121, issue 1, pp. 63-73, has been retracted by agreement between the corresponding author Stanley Rapoport, the Journal's Editor-in-Chief, Jörg Schulz, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The Editorial Office was contacted by the author Stanley Rapoport with the request to retract this and a related publication (see below), informing the Editor-in-Chief that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) had found Dr.Jagadeesh S. Rao guilty of research misconduct by falsifying data in the referenced paper. The Editorial Office was forwarded a letter, signed by investigation committee members on behalf of NIH and NIA, which states: "[…] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigated allegations of research misconduct involving the falsification of data in "Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex." Keleshian VL, Modi HR, Rapoport SI, Rao JS. Journal of Neurochemistry 2013 Apr; 125(1): 63-73. Based on the unanimous decision of a five member committee, composed of NIH investigators, NIH found that Dr. Jagadeesh Rao, corresponding author, knowingly and intentionally committed research misconduct by falsifying data in Figures 1A, 1G, 3G, and 4D in the manuscript(s) listed above. Dr. Rao was solely responsible for the falsification and all other authors were uninvolved. The report was submitted to the HHS Office of Research Integrity for its review. Because Dr. Rao was the corresponding author, Dr. Stanley I. Rapoport, Senior Advisor for the former Laboratory of Brain Physiology and Metabolism Section, is acting for Dr. Rao, who was his representative, and approves this request to retract this publication using the recommended language, in italics above." A related paper has also been retracted: Rao JS, Ertley RN, Rapoport SI, Bazinet RP, Lee HJ. (2007) Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2. J. Neurochem. 102: 1918-1927. References Keleshian V. L., Modi H. R., Rapoport S. I. and Rao J. S. (2013) Aging is associated with altered inflammatory, arachidonic acid cascade, and synaptic markers, influenced by epigenetic modifications, in the human frontal cortex. J. Neurochem. 125, 63-73. Rao J. S., Ertley R. N., Rapoport S. I., Bazinet R. P. and Lee H. J. (2007) Chronic NMDA administration to rats up-regulates frontal cortex cytosolic phospholipase A2 and its transcription factor, activator protein-2. J. Neurochem. 102, 1918-1927.

Retraction: Suppression of intestinal tumorigenesis in Apc mutant mice upon Musashi-1 deletion. J. Cell Sci. doi: 10.1242/jcs.197574

The journal is retracting ‘Suppression of intestinal tumorigenesis in Apc mutant mice upon Musashi-1 deletion’ by Andy R. Wolfe, Amanda Ernlund, William McGuinness, Carl Lehmann, Kaitlyn Carl, Nicole Balmaceda and Kristi L. Neufeld (2017). J. Cell Sci. 130, 805-813 (doi: 10.1242/jcs.197574).This notice updates and replaces the Expression of Concern (doi: 10.1242/jcs.210690) relating to the above-referenced article.After concerns were raised by a reader, Journal of Cell Science detected the following issues with the data in the above article: The journal contacted Dr Kristi Neufeld, the corresponding author, who in accordance with institutional policy, referred the issue to the Research Integrity Officer. The journal also contacted the Director of Research Integrity at the University of Kansas.In consultation with the Director of Research Integrity at The University of Kansas, Dr Neufeld then provided the following statement:“This article has been withdrawn by the authors. After notification of inconsistencies in some of the figure panels, the senior author found that Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B and Fig. 3A were not consistent with the primary data. Due to this concern and the length of time required to repeat the experiments in question, the authors wish to retract the paper. We sincerely regret this situation and extend our deepest apologies to the scientific community.”The authors have agreed to this retraction.

La retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para conservar la integridad y la confianza en la ciencia: un análisis de retractaciones de publicaciones biomédicas de libre acceso en PubMed, 1959-2015

Las herramientas informáticas han permitido la detección de diversas manifestaciones de mala conducta en investigación en la literatura científica. Organismos como The Office for Research Integrity (ORI), el Comité de Ética de la Publicación (COPE), el Retraction Watch y las academias de ciencias de los países, organizan cursos, seminarios e investigaciones para promover valores como la honestidad, la imparcialidad, la objetividad, la fiabilidad, la responsabilidad y el escepticismo en la comunicación científica. En este trabajo se analizaron 1.373 artículos registrados en PubMed entre 1959 y 2015, cuyo texto y nota de retractación eran de libre acceso. Se observó que los artículos retractados entre 2010 y 2015 casi duplicaron el acumulado de los 44 años anteriores. El error admitido, el plagio o autoplagio y la falsificación o fabricación de datos, se presentaron en 32,8 %, 23,7 % y 19,7 % de las ocasiones, respectivamente. En los primeros cuatro meses del 2015, se retractaron 37 artículos por revisoría falsa o influencia de los autores sobre los revisores, una modalidad de mala conducta en la investigación no detectada en estudios anteriores. Los porcentajes de artículos retractados de libre acceso en relación con los artículos de libre acceso publicados por año variaron de 0,0072 % (1/13.861) en 1966 a 0,0472 % (213/45.1021) en el 2013. El porcentaje de artículos retractados en relación con los artículos publicados provenientes de 54 países en el mismo periodo (1959 a 2015), varió entre 0,0042 % (1/23.761) y 0,2732 % (1/366). El número de artículos retractados con más de 10 autores fue menor que aquellos con 6 a10 o 1 a 5 autores. La retractación de 794 (57,8 %) artículos se presentó antes de los dos primeros años y 579 (42.2 %) después de dos años de su publicación. La retractación de 714 (52 %) artículos fue solicitada por los autores, de 485 (35,3 %) por los editores y de 70 (5,1 %) de común acuerdo por ambas partes. El 80,8% (1.110/1.373) de los artículos retractados habían sido citados. En el artículo se discute la importancia de promover la educación sobre la retractación y la corrección de la literatura científica para contribuir a la integridad de la ciencia y a la confianza de la sociedad en la comunidad científica. © 2016. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Ex. Fis. Nat.

Life After Research Misconduct.

Research misconduct is a serious violation of a scientific community's ethical standards. Scientists who commit research misconduct typically face corrective actions from employers and funding agencies, as well as significant professional stigma. Unfortunately, there is little systematic data about the post-misconduct career of these guilty parties. Through a review of Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries, I identified a pool of 284 researchers who engaged in research misconduct and were subject to ORI corrective actions. To assess the prevalence of post-misconduct research activities for these scientists, I searched publicly available databases and online resources for evidence of post-misconduct research activities (such as publications and federal research support). The data demonstrate that researchers often receive second chances as researchers, with indicators of post-misconduct research activities identified for 134 (47.18%) of the offending researchers. In addition, those researchers have received more than US$123 million in federal support for their post-misconduct research efforts.

Promoting Responsible Research Conduct: A South African Perspective

A great deal of effort has gone into developing capacity in the sphere of human research protection programmes in South Africa and Africa over the last decade or more, by several international organisations. However the promotion of the broader agenda of research integrity or ‘RCR’ (Responsible Conduct of Research) has lagged behind. From a global perspective South Africa and other African countries are actively involved in research endeavours and collaborations across a very broad spectrum of scientific fields. For this research to fulfil its potential social value it must be reliable and trustworthy and hence it is essential that research institutions and universities take the promotion of research integrity seriously. The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of an institutional office of research integrity within the context of academic research particularly in South Africa but also in Africa. I will reflect on my own experience over a period of five years as a research integrity officer at a South African academic institution to highlight concerns in five domains; the promotion of an ethic of responsibility in opposition to compliance and bureaucracy, collaboration ethics and collegiality especially in the context of North-South collaborations, authorship and publication ethics, the problem of plagiarism and the utility of policy and procedure. I will suggest that the establishment of such an office can be of great value in the promotion of a broad culture of research ethics and responsible research conduct. The possible role and scope of function of an institutional office of research integrity will be briefly outlined.

Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.

When there have been substantial failures by institutional leadership in their oversight responsibility to protect research integrity, the public should demand that these be recognized and addressed by the institution itself, or the funding bodies. This commentary discusses a case of research failures in developing genomic predictors for cancer risk assessment and treatment at a leading university. In its review of this case, the Office of Research Integrity, an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services, focused their report entirely on one individual faculty member and made no comment on the institution's responsibility and its failure to provide adequate oversight and investigation. These actions missed an important opportunity to emphasize the institution's critical responsibilities in oversight of research integrity and the importance of institutional transparency and accountability.

Name that offender? It depends.

Science faced a major obstacle when it set out to identify researchers barred from receiving government grants because of research misconduct. The problem: There is no government-wide registry of cases, and no common approach by the two agencies that police scientific misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity within the Department of Health and Human Services describes the cases of sanctioned researchers and the outcome on its website in the Federal Register , whereas the National Science Foundation redacts the name and all identifying features from its published summary of completed cases. At the same time, an obscure government website intended to prevent federal officials from inadvertently giving a grant or contract to someone who is ineligible provides a limited amount of information on those cases.

Retraction Statement: "High-Volumetric Performance Aligned Nano-Porous Microwave Exfoliated Graphite Oxide-based Electrochemical Capacitors" and "Aligned Nano-Porous Microwave Exfoliated Graphite Oxide Ionic Actuators with High Strain and Elastic Energy Density".

These articles first published on 15 August 2013 and 21 August 2013 on the Wiley Online Library have been retracted at the request of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) of The Pennsylvania State University, in agreement with the corresponding authors, the journal's Editor-in-Chief, and Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, because portions of the reported results cannot be considered reliable or reproducible. Following an investigation by the RIO of The Pennsylvania State University, it was found that the data in Figure 2a,b and Figure S1a,b (Supporting Information) of the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301243, and Figure S3 (Supporting Information) of the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301370 were falsified. Data regarding the carbon electrode material, A-aMEGO, reported to have a density of 1.15 g cm-3 , in the article with DOI: 10.1002/adma.201301243, were falsified. The RIO of The Pennsylvania State University confirms that the investigation found that the mentioned data were falsified by the first author. No findings of research misconduct were made against the co-authors of these publications. [1] M. Ghaffari, Y. Zhou, H. Xu, M. Lin, T. Y. Kim, R. S. Ruoff, Q. M. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 25: 2013, 4879. doi:10.1002/adma.201301243 [2] M. Ghaffari, W. Kinsman, Y. Zhou, S. Murali, Q. Burlingame, M. Lin, R. S. Ruoff, Q. M. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 25: 2013, 6277. doi:10.1002/adma.201301370.

Neurologic involvement in patients with atypical Chediak-Higashi disease.

The Editors of Neurology® have investigated the article “Neurologic involvement in patients with atypical Chediak-Higashi disease” by W.J. Introne et al.1 following publication on September 28, 2016, of an Expression of Concern.2 The Editors' investigation resulted from a notification by the US Office of Research Integrity on September 1, 2016, that an investigation from that office had found that figure 2A, contributed by coauthor Andrew R. Cullinane, had been manipulated and was fraudulent. The Editors were concerned about the implications of the fraudulent figure for the overall data and conclusions of the paper. They requested an explanation from the authors. Based on information provided, the Editors retract figure 2A and remove Dr. Cullinane from the author byline.

Retraction: GRIM-19-mediated translocation of STAT3 to mitochondria is necessary for TNF-induced necroptosis.

Retraction of: J. Cell Sci. 125, 2995-3003This article has been retracted at the request of the corresponding author, John G. Pastorino.This notice updates and replaces a recent Expression of Concern, published on 15 February 2016.Journal of Cell Science was alerted to potential blot duplication and reuse in the following five papers published in Journal of Cell Science by John G. Pastorino:Sirtuin-3 deacetylation of cyclophilin D induces dissociation of hexokinase II from the mitochondria Nataly Shulga, Robin Wilson-Smith and John G. Pastorino J. Cell. Sci. (2010) 123, 894-902Ethanol sensitizes mitochondria to the permeability transition by inhibiting deacetylation of cyclophilin-D mediated by sirtuin-3 Nataly Shulga and John G. Pastorino J. Cell. Sci. (2010) 123, 4117-4127GRIM-19-mediated translocation of STAT3 to mitochondria is necessary for TNF-induced necroptosis Nataly Shulga and John G. Pastorino J. Cell. Sci. (2012) 125, 2995-3003Sirtuin-3 modulates Bak- and Bax-dependent apoptosis Manish Verma, Nataly Shulga and John G. Pastorino J. Cell. Sci. (2013) 126, 274-288Mitoneet mediates TNFα-induced necroptosis promoted by exposure to fructose and ethanol Nataly Shulga and John G. Pastorino J. Cell. Sci. (2014) 127, 896-907These concerns were relayed to Dr Pastorino, the corresponding author, who responded with an explanation and original data. Following review of these data, we felt unable to resolve this matter at a distance, so contacted the authors’ institution (Rowan University) and requested that they investigate further.Following their assessment, Rowan University required that Dr Pastorino retract all of the above named papers published in Journal of Cell Science. Dr Pastorino also entered a Voluntary Exclusion Agreement with The Office of Research Integrity (ORI); the agreement can be found here: http://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-pastorino-john-g.ORI found that Dr Pastorino intentionally falsified and/or fabricated data and, specifically, that he “duplicated images, or trimmed and/or manipulated blot images from unrelated sources to obscure their origin, and relabelled them to represent different experimental results in:”

Retraction.

RetractionRetractionPublished Online:07 Jul 2016https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.zh2-7964-retr.2016Retracted articleMoreSectionsPDF (36 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat Fgfr2 is integral for bladder mesenchyme patterning and function. Walker, KA, Ikeda Y, Zabbarova I, Schaefer CM, Bushnell D, De Groat WC, Kanai A, and Bates CM. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 308: F888–F898, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00624.2014.The Office of Research Integrity, Office of the Secretary, HHS, has reported that the quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) data in Figs. 1E, 4C, 7G, 7J, 8F, and 12A have been falsified and/or fabricated (http://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-walker-kenneth).Therefore, this article is being retracted by the American Physiological Society in agreement with the authors.This article has no references to display. Download PDF Previous Back to Top FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation Related ArticlesFgfr2 is integral for bladder mesenchyme patterning and function 15 Apr 2015American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology More from this issue > Volume 311Issue 1July 2016Pages F239-F239 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2016 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.zh2-7964-retr.2016PubMed27208158History Published online 7 July 2016 Published in print 1 July 2016 Metrics

The Essential Need for Research Misconduct Allegation Audits.

Nearly 90 % of allegations of biomedical research misconduct in the United States are dismissed by responsible institutions without any faculty assessment or auditable record. Recently, members of the U.S. Congress have complained that the penalties for those against whom findings of research misconduct are made are too light and that too few grant funds associated with research misconduct have been recovered for use by other researchers and taxpayers. Here we discuss the laws that empower federal agencies that can oversee investigations of biomedical research misconduct: the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), both located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Research misconduct investigations pertaining to U.S. physical sciences funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) are overseen by the NSF’s OIG. While OIGs may provide some improvement over the ORI in the handling of research misconduct, we have found that a much more serious flaw exists which undermines an ability to conduct performance audits of the effectiveness by which allegations of research misconduct are handled in the United States. Specifically, sufficient data do not need to be retained by U.S. research institutions funded by HHS or NSF to allow effective audit of why allegations of research misconduct are dismissed before being seen by faculty inquiry or investigative committees. U.S. federal Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS/Yellow Book), if applied to the research misconduct oversight process, would allow a determination of whether the handling of allegations of biomedical research misconduct actually functions adequately, and if not, how it might be improved. In particular, we propose that independent, external peer review under GAGAS audit standards should be instituted without delay in assessing the performance of ORI, or any other similarly tasked federal agency, in handling allegations of research misconduct.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Statistical Significance and Scientific Misconduct: Improving the Style of the Published Research Paper

A science, business, or law that is basing its validity on the level of p-values, t statistics and other tests of statistical significance is looking less and less relevant and more and more unethical. Here is a fact rather tough to swallow: today’s economist devotes a lot of time and energy and wit to putting a clever index of opportunity cost into his model or game; but then, like the amnesiac or weaker college freshman, he fails to see opportunity cost in statistical estimates and interpretations he makes of those very same models. Medicine, psychology, and pharmacology are similarly damaged by this fundamental error of science, keeping bad treatments and drugs on the market and good ones out. A few small changes to the style of the published research paper using statistical methods can bring large beneficial effects to more than academic research papers. It is suggested that misuse of statistical significance be added to the definition of scientific misconduct which is currently used and enforced by the National Institutes of Health, the Office of Research Integrity, the National Science Foundation and others.

Statistical significance and scientific misconduct: improving the style of the published research paper

A science, business, or law that is basing its validity on the level of p-values, t statistics and other tests of statistical significance is looking less and less relevant and more and more unethical. Today’s economist uses a lot of wit putting a clever index of opportunity cost into his models; but then, like the amnesiac, he fails to see opportunity cost in statistical estimates he makes of those same models. Medicine, psychology, pharmacology and other fields are similarly damaged by this fundamental error of science, keeping bad treatments on the market and good ones out. A few small changes to the style of the published research paper using statistical methods can bring large beneficial effects to more than academic research papers. It is suggested that misuse of statistical significance be added to the definition of scientific misconduct currently enforced by the NIH, NSF, Office of Research Integrity and others.

New director for U.S. Office of Research Integrity

New director for U.S. Office of Research Integrity

Retraction Note: Chronic neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment following transient global cerebral ischemia: role of fractalkine/CX3CR1 signaling

This article [1] has been retracted by the Editors-in-Chief. Based on the report of an inquiry conducted by Wayne State University and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) [2], the ORI informed the journal that the first author Dr Teresita L. Briones engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data by falsely reporting the results of Western blot experiments, and that data reported in Figures 2A and 2C in [1] were duplicated, reused and falsely relabelled, and claimed to represent different experiments. We have not been able to contact any of the authors.

Science and Ethics in Dialogue: Ethical Research Conduct and Genetic Information Application

Abstract This book represents my experience teaching graduate students in Biomedical Science at Hood College. Being science majors, the students have a limited background in philosophy and ethics. Most of the graduate students are employed at area research laboratories while also pursuing a Master of Science degree. Their practical day-to-day experience in scientific research is helpful in discussions of responsible conduct of research cases. Being aware of increased cases of misconduct the United States established the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Their publication, Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, defines misconduct as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Concern for the breach of public trust with repercussions in scientific funding has led to mandates for courses in ethics for students pursuing a scientific career. In addition, the Human Genome Project megaproject funded Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Research (www.genome.gov/ELSI/) recognizing that the genet...

Notice to Readers: The Effect of Falsified Clostridium difficile Infections Surveillance Data on Results Reported in MMWR.

In 2012, MMWR published the report, "Vital Signs: Preventing Clostridium difficile Infections," which examined Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) surveillance data. This report contained several errors pertaining to Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data. These errors occurred as a result of scientific misconduct by a former employee of the Oregon Health Authority. The Public Health Service Office of Research Integrity has determined that the former employee falsified or fabricated data for 56 Oregon EIP CDI case report forms (https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-asherin-ryan). The authors re-analyzed the EIP data to determine if the removal of all Oregon CDI cases (57 total cases) from the 10,342 cases included in the original publication altered the previously reported results. It did not. Re-analysis confirms the conclusions in the original report. Data in the original report from sources other than the Oregon Health Authority (i.e., from other EIP sites, the National Healthcare Safety Network, and Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York CDI prevention programs) were not involved in the research misconduct.Errata for the 2012 report have been published in this issue of MMWR.

Closing the barn door: Coping with findings of research misconduct by trainees in the biomedical sciences

The proportion of research misconduct cases among trainees in the biomedical sciences has risen, raising the question of why, and what are the responsibilities of research administrators and the research community to address this problem. Although there is no definitive research about causes, for trainees the relationship with a research mentor should play a major role in preventing actions that constitute research misconduct (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism). Examination of the limited literature and of the number of cases closed by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) between 2009 and 2013 raises questions about the mentor-student relationship and what it should be accomplishing. But many gaps in policy and its implementation inhibit this role. There is no acknowledgement of mentorship in federal regulations and research on how to teach research integrity is woefully underdeveloped, especially for international trainees. And some institutional research integrity officers may have had little preparation for the role.

Investigating David Baltimore and Thereza Imanishi-Kari

This case study case is designed to teach about federal support for basic biomedical research and the shifting regulatory terrain for oversight of scientific conduct. The case is especially useful for instructors in healthcare policy, healthcare politics, and NIH-mandated courses in the responsible conduct of research (RCR).Issues of scientific misconduct and responsibility for the oversight of biomedical research came to a head in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In the course of a series of investigations into scientific fraud and misconduct involving Nobel laureate David Baltimore and research scientists Thereza Imanishi-Kari, new policies were established in the United States and internationally. The institutional structure of oversight of scientific conduct by U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) expanded, first with the creation of the Office of Scientific Integrity and later, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Set in December 1991, the case asks whether Baltimore should resign as president of Rockefeller University. His short tenure had been rocked by controversy over allegations concerning a publication from 1986 in the leading journal, Cell. Although Baltimore himself was never accused of misconduct or data manipulation, investigations into the underlying data led to questions about his role as co-author. His position was weakened when he staunchly defended his collaborator and clashed with John Dingell, a powerful member of Congress. Furthermore, faculty members at Rockefeller were opposed to the institutional changes he was imposing and used the investigations as a basis for challenging Baltimore.