Schneider Shorts 8.03.2024 – Your comments harm authors and their mental health

Schneider Shorts of 8 March 2024 – Parkinson’s cured with Photoshop, Wiley abolishes COI policy, clean-up after sacked fraudsters, Bostonian reputations defended, retractions for Macchiarini and other science elites at QMUL, Stanford, Columbia and even for MDPI Jesus, and finally, PNAS special for Women’s Day!

---

---

Science Elites

Festival of Lights

Meet Charles Meshul, Parkinson’s researcher and neuroscience professor at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) in USA. And meet his PubPeer record, which visualises where all that big money from NIH, Michael J Fox Foundation and other funding agencies went. Into Photoshop, that is.

The issues were found by Dysdera arabisenen, then Elisabeth Bik and others joined.

Kateri J Spinelli , Jonathan K Taylor , Valerie R Osterberg , Madeline J Churchill , Eden Pollock , Cynthia Moore , Charles K Meshul , Vivek K Unni Presynaptic alpha-synuclein aggregation in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease Journal of Neuroscience (2014) doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2581-13.2014

In 2015, Meshul was honoured with “OHSU’s Festival of Lights Award for his research on Parkinson’s disease”, we learned:

“Meshul’s work examines the effectiveness of both exercise and compounds called ‘hydroxyflavones’ (ingredients found in fresh fruits/vegetables) as useful interventions in the progressive deficits that occur in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease.  He found that both treatments improved the motor/physical ability of the mice and in some instances lead to a blockade of the progression of the disease.”

Festival of Lights indeed:

N R S Goldberg , A K Haack , C K Meshul Enriched environment promotes similar neuronal and behavioral recovery in a young and aged mouse model of Parkinson’s disease Neuroscience (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.09.062 

A closer look into Figure 1:

And a reuse of same fake figures in another paper:

Beth A Smith, Natalie R S Goldberg , Charles K Meshul Effects of treadmill exercise on behavioral recovery and neural changes in the substantia nigra and striatum of the 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine-lesioned mouse Brain Research (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.02.003

That paper has other problems:

Naturally, there are also fake western blots. In 2023!

Tanya Denne , Lila C Winfrey , Cindy Moore , Chase Whitner , Theresa D’Silva , Amala Soumyanath , Lynne Shinto , Amie Hiller , Charles K Meshul Recovery of motor function is associated with rescue of glutamate biomarkers in the striatum and motor cortex following treatment with Mucuna pruriens in a murine model of Parkinsons disease Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience (2023)   doi: 10.1016/j.mcn.2023.103883

Meshul also cured Huntington’s Disease with Photoshop:

Anna Parievsky , Cindy Moore , Talia Kamdjou , Carlos Cepeda , Charles K Meshul , Michael S Levine Differential electrophysiological and morphological alterations of thalamostriatal and corticostriatal projections in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington’s disease Neurobiology of Disease (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.07.020 

---

Blatant disregard for scientific record-keeping

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports about the case of William Armstead, former University of Pennsylvania professor, who published massive fraud on the topic of brain trauma, using piglets as model. Several studies were retracted.

The newspaper writes on 4 March 2024:

“..a four-year ordeal that ended with federal officials concluding that Armstead had deliberately falsified or fabricated 51 images, charts, and other data in a series of studies and grant applications. Armstead left his job at Penn and agreed to a seven-year ban on federally funded research.

The Inquirer has now obtained 131 pages of internal documents and emails with previously undisclosed details illustrating how the case unfolded. The records include Penn’s scathing, 23-page report on which the government’s July 2023 findings were based. […]

Penn ultimately paid the government back nearly $1.7 million in grant funds that Armstead had used in his research”

The newspaper published the investigative report on Google Drive.

“The case against Armstead began on Feb. 14, 2019, according to a timeline in the 23-page report from Penn’s investigation committee. That’s when a school official received an email alleging that the scientist had engaged in “possible duplicative use of data and images.” […]

In their final report, dated Oct. 5, 2021, committee members found that Armstead:

1. Reused or falsified graphs and images on numerous occasions
2. Conducted certain experiments with methods that differed from how they were described in published studies
3. When some of his published results were called into question, could not produce original data to show where his calculations had come from

“There was a blatant disregard for scientific record-keeping, such that published data could not be reproduced due to the vast absence of the original data,” committee members wrote.”

Victor Curvello , Hugh Hekierski , John Riley , Monica Vavilala , William M Armstead Sex and age differences in phenylephrine mechanisms and outcomes after piglet brain injury Pediatric Research (2017) doi: 10.1038/pr.2017.83 

PubPeer records list 6 retracted papers by Armstead: Curvello et al 2017, Curvello et al 2019, Armstead et al 2016, Armstead et al 2016b, Armstead et al 2017 (all retracted in 2022) and Kreipke et al 2011 (retracted in 2017). Philadelphia Inquirer writes there will be soon another retraction in Elsevier’s Brain Research.

Armstead is of course a fraud, but I wonder why he was kicked out and literally made to pay, but other fraudsters are not.

Here is my theory: Armstead only pretended to torture animals, and then invented the experimental results. Academia hates this. They expect you to first torture your animals, and only then to fake data.

Prove me wrong.

---

Your comments harm authors and their mental health

Meet an English professor now, Waqar Ahmed of University of Lincoln, who apparently got trapped in his own trolling. This materials scientist held faculty jobs in 6 English universities, before moving to Lincoln in 2017, he used to be professor at the University of Central Lancashire for almost 10 years. The paper, co-authored by his colleagues from India, Iran, Oman and USA, was flagged on PubPeer in July 2023 by Thallarcha lechrioleuca:

Riyaz Ahmad Dar, Gowhar Ahmad Naikoo, Ashwini Kumar Srivastava , Israr Ul Hassan , Shashi P. Karna , Lily Giri , Ahamad M. H. Shaikh , Mashallah Rezakazemi , Waqar Ahmed Performance of graphene-zinc oxide nanocomposite coated-glassy carbon electrode in the sensitive determination of para-nitrophenol Scientific Reports (2022) doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03495-2 

On 3 March 2024, Ahmed replied:

“Dear Thallarcha lechrioleuca, We recently came to know about your comments on our published article and we apologize for the delayed response. Thank you for your valuable time in reading our published manuscript which is published in Scientific Reports, and which was peer reviewed by the expert reviewers of the domain. However, regarding your concerns, the authors would have appreciated if you would have approached to the Editor-in-Chief of this Journal and Cc to the corresponding authors of this paper and requested for tiff images and original data files before jumping to Pubpeer, without thinking how much your comments can harm authors and their mental health? Since you have not revealed your identity, authors don’t know how much knowledge you have regarding these techniques and the interpretation of these results. Authors recommend you send an email to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal and Cc to the corresponding authors regarding your concerns and we will assure you, you will get raw data files and all results whatever you need. Your all concerns will be addressed. (P.S. For your kind information, from your comments, authors are well aware of your identity).”

Spoiler for Ahmed: Thallarcha lechrioleuca: is certainly not whoever he suspects. Those poorly veiled threats are scaring the wrong people. I wrote to Ahmed, with his university’s research integrity officers and the publisher Springer Nature in cc. Ahmed replied:

“I am sorry for the hurt caused by the comments. They are NOT my comments. I have no knowledge of the comments made under my name. 
They have come from a Dhofar University email address and somehow associated with my name. I have no affiliation with the Dhofar University, and I have never had an email address from that organisation.”

How does he know from which address the comments were posted? And hwy is he not interested to talk about the data forgeries in his paper? Ahmed answers with:

“Please address your concerns to the corresponding author and the journal.”

Right after, the first and corresponding author Riyaz Ahmad Dar posted this on PubPeer:

“First of all, I would like to clarify that the previous responses was posted by Riyaz A. Dar, the main corresponding author of this paper. I apologize for the identity statement. I am repeating again, please send an email to the editor in chief & cc to me, I will provide the results including raw data files & HRTEM images. Thank you.”

Spoiler: Dar is affiliated with Maharashtra College in India, not with Dhofar University in Oman.

Then Elisabeth Bik found more issues (I added the hyperlink):

Jon Whitehead, University of Lincoln professor and UKRIO’s Research Misconduct Named Person, wrote to me:

“Many thanks for bringing this matter to our attention.  Please be assured that the University takes all allegations of research misconduct extremely seriously.  In accordance with the guidance set out in the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research we will follow up with the corresponding authors, their respective Institutes, and the journal and take appropriate action.”

Then, I looked at Ahmed’s LinkedIn profile. Turns out, the Deputy Head of School and Director of Enterprise of University of Lincoln is #OpenToWork.

---

Scholarly Publishing

No conflict of interest

Wiley declared that they don’t believe in Conflicts of Interests because scientists are above dirty monetary things. In particular, scientists are above scamming desperate parents of autistic children for obscene amounts of money with quack cures like vitamins, stem cells or bleach.

Here, it is about a case I reported in May 2023 Friday Shorts. Israeli Scientist^TM and Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher Haitham Amal patented a cure for autism (which is a nitric oxide synthase inhibiting drug 7-nitroindazole), founded in January 2023 his own company Point6.bio to sell that cure, and in May 2023 published a mouse study in Wiley advertising for his bullshit cure for autism.

Manish Kumar Tripathi, Shashank Kumar Ojha, Maryam Kartawy, Wajeha Hamoudi, Ashwani Choudhary, Shani Stern, Adi Aran, Haitham Amal The NO Answer for Autism Spectrum Disorder Advanced Science (2023) doi: 10.1002/advs.202205783

The paper stated:

“The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

Which is obviously a bold-faced lie. Amal was not only raising investments for his own Point6.bio business before he published his scientifically insane paper, where he made mice autistic by exposing them to nitric oxide (NO), and then reverted them back to normal with 7-nitroindazole. Amal was also negotiating a licence to the company Beyond Air (read here, here and here), which was signed as soon as the paper was published and duly celebrated as a ground-breaking leap-of-genius in Israeli media.

Beyond Air specialises in therapies with NO for lung diseases and cancer (sic!), and it announced to test Amal’s therapy on humans. Which, if Amal’s bullshit really worked, would mean that autistic kids would lose autism but acquire cancer.

Now, to Wiley’s views on Amal’s COIs. On 5 March 2024, after almost 10 months of investigation, the journal Advanced Sciences and its Ulf Scheffler educated me:

“Thank you again for raising awareness to our journal about this potential COI. We have investigated this case in alignment with COPE guidelines and came to the conclusion that no further amendment to the publication record is required. I would like to outline the reasons for this decision here:

• The authors indeed founded a company that is partially related to the corresponding patent and the research described in this manuscript. However, this company was founded after the research published was finalized already. At that time, the manuscript was already in revision.
• The research did not receive any commercial funding. This was also confirmed by the Institute/author´s supervisors.
• While patent applications can be mentioned in a COI-statement, this is not mandatory. Accordingly, this aspect does not represent an integrity concern.
• The editors and previous reviewers evaluated the concerns raised. Reviewers confirmed that knowledge about the company and patent do not have a potential to affect the reliability or interpretation of the results in their opinion. Furthermore, this knowledge would not have changed their recommendation for acceptance. The handling Editor and EiC confirm this.

As a result, the manuscript can stand as is.”

Medical researchers never have financial COI. Especially when they sell their own product.

---

No further action necessary

American Society for Microbiology educated Clare Francis not to slander Harvard professors. The occasion was this paper:

Jianhua Sui , Wenhui Li , Anjeanette Roberts , Leslie J. Matthews , Akikazu Murakami , Leatrice Vogel , Swee Kee Wong , Kanta Subbarao , Michael Farzan , Wayne A. Marasco Evaluation of Human Monoclonal Antibody 80R for Immunoprophylaxis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome by an Animal Study, Epitope Mapping, and Analysis of Spike Variants Journal of Virology (2005) doi: 10.1128/jvi.79.10.5900-5906.2005 

There are probably more duplicated gel bands, but the resolution is too law. The highlighted duplication is however beyond obvious. But in empirical science, eminence always trumps evidence, and the last and corresponding author Wayne Marasco is a white American man and Harvard professor at the by now infamous Dana Farber Cancer Institute. He is reputed to be “actively working on antibody discovery for COVID-19“. Marasco was briefly mentioned in this article:

So this was the reply Clare Francis received from the American Society for Microbiology Journals Ethics Team:

“Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention. This email is to acknowledge that the American Society for Microbiology has received your email and followed the ASM Ethics Policies and Procedures (https://journals.asm.org/content/ethics-policies-and-procedures) for evaluating ethics concerns.

We were unable to substantiate the duplication concerns with this manuscript. We consider this matter to be closed and no further action necessary.“

In defence of ASM I must admit that one of Journal of Virology‘s editors is a certain English cheater in Italy named Lawrence Banks, it was possibly his decision. Read about Banks at the end here:

Naturally, Marasco has more papers on PubPeer. Here is a bad paper of his with a very toxic Dana Farber colleague Sabina Signoretti:

De-Kuan Chang, Raymond J Moniz, Zhongyao Xu, Jiusong Sun, Sabina Signoretti , Quan Zhu, Wayne A Marasco Human anti-CAIX antibodies mediate immune cell inhibition of renal cell carcinoma in vitro and in a humanized mouse model in vivo Molecular Cancer (2015) doi: 10.1186/s12943-015-0384-3 

Here is another mouse kidney which Marasco and Signoretti misplaced:

Eloah Rabello Suarez , De-Kuan Chang , Jiusong Sun , Jianhua Sui , Gordon J. Freeman, Sabina Signoretti, Quan Zhu , Wayne A. Marasco Chimeric antigen receptor T cells secreting anti-PD-L1 antibodies more effectively regress renal cell carcinoma in a humanized mouse model Oncotarget (2016) doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.9114

---

Given the age of the paper

Nature expressed concerns about a paper by two US cancer research bigwigs: Tyler Jacks and Elsa Flores. Read about their first joint retraction in earlier Friday Shorts, and for back story here:

This is the paper, flagged on PubPeer in December 2022:

Elsa R. Flores, Kenneth Y. Tsai , Denise Crowley , Shomit Sengupta , Annie Yang , Frank McKeon , Tyler Jacks p63 and p73 are required for p53-dependent apoptosis in response to DNA damage Nature (2002) doi: 10.1038/416560a 

But Nature looked. On 26 May 2023, an Editor’s Note was issued:

“Readers are alerted that the reliability of data presented in this manuscript is currently in question. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.”

This was the appropriate editorial action, taken on 28 February 2024:

“Nature is publishing an editorial expression of concern on the article “p63 and p73 are required for p53-dependent apoptosis in response to DNA damage” from Flores et al. to alert the readership that image integrity issues have been raised with some of the data.

The first and corresponding author have been able to confirm the integrity of the data in Figures 2b, 3b and 4a, with the original source data, and have provided contemporaneous replicates for some experiments. Given the age of the paper there is insufficient information to conclusively assess potential image integrity issues in Figure 4b. However, analysis by the authors and the journal has confirmed that Supplementary Figure S4b contains duplicated images, which the authors believe was due to an error in the assembly of this supplementary figure.

Readers are urged to take this information into consideration when interpreting the data presented in this article. All the authors agree with the Editorial Expression of Concern.”

Now, Figures 2b, 3b and 4a were NOT flagged on PubPeer. Still, Nature found something in those which required authors to submit “contemporaneous replicates“, i.e replacement forgeries. But this was on PubPeer, first post already in December 2022, but the fraud in Figure S4a is so bad Nature just had to pretend it was not there:

I contacted Nature, the editors did not deny to have intentionally ignored Fig S4a. MIT professor Jacks did not reply, from Moffitt Cancer Center’s associate director for basic science Flores came an out-of-office:

“I am out of the office and will have limited email access. I will respond to your email when I return“.

No date when she will return.

---

Retraction Watchdogging

Moffitt’s Research Integrity Program

Interestingly, Elsa Flores is the person responsible for investigating research misconduct in basic science at Moffitt:

“Dr. Elsa R. Flores is the Associate Center Director for the Division of Basic Science and is responsible for overseeing research and administrative operations in the division, which is composed of five academic research departments: Cancer Physiology, Drug Discovery, Immunology, Molecular Oncology and Tumor Biology.”

Under her leadership, Moffitt can be tough and uncompromising on data manipulation. As this recent retraction reminds:

This is the Retraction from 5 March 2024:

“The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. An internal investigation by the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center of specific allegations identified that the blots presented in Fig. 1d (pSTAT3 and Flag-STAT3) and Fig. 4a (pSTAT3) appear to show splice marks and erased areas around the bands. As a result of the investigation, Moffitt’s Research Integrity Program recommended retraction of the article to the Publisher.

In reviewing Moffitt’s recommendation, further checks by the Publisher have found additional issues:

• Figs. 1a and 3a appear to have inconsistent or missing backgrounds.
• In Fig. 4c, some GAPDH bands appear to have unusually straight edges on the sides.
• In Fig. 5b, the IKBKE RT-PCR right lane appears to have a different background compared with the rest of the gel.
• In Fig. 6b, some Cleaved PARP bands appear to have unusually straight edges on the sides.

The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.”

Jin Quan Cheng was kicked out by Moffitt in 2016, as Retraction Watch reported at that time, after 19 retractions at the society-owned Journal of Biological Chemistry. Back then, the journal had a different leadership, and did mass-retractions. In 2021, it teamed up with Elsevier and hardly ever retracts anything.

---

Unresolvable differences

The Nobel Prize laureate and Stanford professor of neuroscience Thomas Südhof has finally completed his 5 stages of grief and retracted a paper which Maarten van Kampen proved to contain manipulated data. In brief, the study contianed numerical irregularities in the supplemental data, and the first author Pei-Yi Lin reacted by posting on PubPeer fabricated replacement “raw data”. Südhof reacted by crying about 1st Amendment and being “hounded”, censored and cancelled. To prove how much he is being censored, the Nobelist got himself celebrated in a newspaper as a hero of research reproducibility.

Read about the issues here:

This was the paper:

Pei-Yi Lin, Lulu Y. Chen, Peng Zhou, Sung-Jin Lee , Justin H. Trotter, Thomas C. Südhof Neurexin-2 restricts synapse numbers and restrains the presynaptic release probability by an alternative splicing-dependent mechanism Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2023) doi: 10.1073/pnas.2300363120

On 17 October 2023, PNAS published an editorial Expression of Concern:

“The editors note that significant concerns have been raised about the validity of some of the data reported in the article.”

The Retraction was published on 5 March 2024:

“The authors note, “We wish to retract the paper because re-analysis of the original raw data for Figs. 2, 4, and 6 (https://purl.stanford.edu/cp231wr9194) revealed that, although our analyses of the original data are supportive of the conclusions of the paper, unresolvable differences exist between these raw data and the published data source file that cannot be corrected by a simple erratum. In addition, the data source file contained copy-paste errors, and Fig. 1 included shifted data points that occurred during figure drafting. We thank Dr. Daniel Matus of Stanford University for his independent analysis of the primary raw data.””

Amazing how the conclusions can be simultaneously unaffected and unreliable. I also didn’t know Maarten’s real name was Daniel Matus…

---

Perceived quality and the supposed merits

Yet another retraction for trachea transplanters Paolo Macchiarini and Philipp Jungebluth. By Frontiers!

It is the aftermath of Patricia Murray‘s and Peter Wilmshurst‘s successful lobbying with Swedish authority NPOF to investigate Macchiarini’s and Jungebluth’s first trachea transplant from 2008, which was published in two Lancet papers. As the result, NPOF found fraud and ordered retraction.

This is the newly retracted paper, in a journal published by the European Society for Organ Transplantation and something called “Frontiers Publishing Partnerships” (a branch of Frontiers):

Silvia Baiguera , Philipp Jungebluth , Benedetta Mazzanti , Paolo Macchiarini Mesenchymal stromal cells for tissue-engineered tissue and organ replacements Transplant International (2012) doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01426.x 

The Retraction from 5 March 2024 referenced the retracted Macchiarini et al 2008 paper in Lancet, and stated:

“Transplant International published in 2012 a review paper [1], in which another article from the same authors was cited [2]. This article had been published in the Lancet in 2008 and was very recently retracted for demonstrated falsification [3]. The falsification had been confirmed in a decision by the Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct [4].

Briefly, the paper retracted by the Lancet described the allegedly successful transplantation of a tissue-engineered tracheal segment, reporting that “the graft immediately provided the recipient with a functional airway, improved her quality of life, and had a normal appearance and mechanical properties at 4 months” [2]. The conclusions of the investigation by the Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct found that this statement constituted falsification [4].

The review article [1] was accepted and published in Transplant International based on its perceived quality and the supposed merits of the authors’ work. In this review, the authors stated that “(tissue engineering) has already provided functional tissue and organ human replacement” (sic), citing to support this point the retracted Lancet article [2] that they knew contained falsified data.

We are therefore retracting this review article.

Thierry Berney.

Transplant International editor-in-chief.”

---

Research practices of members of this authorship group

Two retractions for the Columbia University Professor and Vice-chair of Radiation Oncology Tom Hei, who according to his university’s press release “retired July 1st, 2023 after 40 years on the faculty.“

Quite possibly he didn’t retire totally voluntarily and Columbia’s exclamation “He will be missed!” was meant ironically. First, the most recent retraction, the paper was flagged on PubPeer in June 2022:

Ziyang Guo , Yingchu Dai , Wentao Hu , Yongsheng Zhang , Zhifei Cao , Weiwei Pei , Ningang Liu , Jing Nie , Anqing Wu , Weidong Mao , Lei Chang , Bingyan Li , Hailong Pei , Tom K. Hei , Guangming Zhou The long noncoding RNA CRYBG3 induces aneuploidy by interfering with spindle assembly checkpoint via direct binding with Bub3 Oncogene (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41388-020-01601-8 

Right away, Hei and his “international collaborators at Soochow University” announced to publish a correction, Hailong Pei assured:

“Luckily, the mis-used picture did not have any negative impact on the data statistics. All the original results remain unchanged. […]
…we can find other replaceable figures from repeated experiments. This mistake does not in any way alter the interpretation nor conclusion of this article. As unintentional errors might cause misunderstanding and concerns among readers of our article, we will contact the editor and publisher of the journal to post a replacement figure to set the record straight.”

The Retraction was published on 5 March 2024:

“The authors have retracted this article because of concerns about images in two of the figures.

In particular:

• Figure 2G (panel Ctrl vs. Ctrl) appears to partially overlap with Figure 2G (panel Ctrl vs. NC)
• Figure 2G (panel Ctrl vs. NC) appears to partially overlap with Figure 2G (panel sh1 vs. NC)
• Figure 2G (panel sh2 vs. Ctrl) appears to partially overlap with Figure 2G (panel sh2 vs. NC)
• The mice shown in Figure 5H (panel Ctrl) appear to be the same as the mice shown in Figure 5H (panel LNC CRYBG3+sh Bub3)

The authors were not able to access the original raw data for the study for verification and as a result, the authors no longer have confidence in the veracity of the data in this article.”

The retraction from January 2024 was a bit more informative:

Vladimir N. Ivanov, Peter W. Grabham , Cheng-Chia Wu , Tom K. Hei Inhibition of autophagic flux differently modulates cannabidiol-induced death in 2D and 3D glioblastoma cell cultures Scientific Reports (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-59468-4 

It was already corrected in September 2021:

“The original version of this Article contained errors in Figures 1 and 10, and in the Supplementary Information file. Figure 1a was assembled with two incorrect images of western blots for “ATM” and “p53-P(S15)”. Figure 1b was assembled with an incorrect image of western blot “LC3” at 24 h (left side), which contained an error in treatment condition and a transfer error for lane 1. The corresponding data for Figures 1 and 10 were also corrected in the Supplementary Information file. In addition, an error in treatment conditions for the western blots in Figure 10 was discovered. As a result, the western blots for “TS543”, “CBD (40)” in panel c were removed.”

But in June 2022 Cheshire found more:

The first author Vladimir N. Ivanov replied on PubPeer with replacement images. The Retraction from 16 January 2024 revealed interesting things (highlight mine):

“The Editors have retracted this Article.

This follows an investigation by Columbia University into the research practices of members of this authorship group. Amongst its findings, this investigation concluded that the content of images in 4f and 4g is inconsistent with the raw data. Specifically:

• In the published Figure 4f, lanes 2, 3 and 4 are described as having CBD at three concentrations (10, 20 and 20 μM). However, in the raw data, the annotation shows that only lanes 3 and 4 contained CBD.
• In the published Figure 4g, none of the experimental conditions include Gy (“Gray,” a unit of radiation), and there is no mention in the manuscript that these cells were irradiated. However, in the raw data the annotations show that all four lanes were irradiated (noted with “Gy”). Additionally, the published figure indicates that the cells were treated with a STAT3 inhibitor-6 (STAT3_i6), which is inconsistent with the annotations in the raw data.
• Lane 2 in the published image for 4g contains CBD, whereas lane 2 in the full blot viewed in the raw data does not.

The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented.

Peter W. Grabham, Cheng-Chia Wu and Tom K. Hei agree with the retraction and its wording. Vladimir N. Ivanov disagrees with the retraction.”

So there was an investigation by Columbia University, which explains why Hei resigned and will be so sorely missed. Hei and Ivanov have a very long list of other papers on PubPeer which also should be retracted. A representative one, flagged like most others by Clare Francis:

Xuezhong Gong, Vladimir N. Ivanov , Tom K. Hei 2,3,5,6-Tetramethylpyrazine (TMP) down-regulated arsenic-induced heme oxygenase-1 and ARS2 expression by inhibiting Nrf2, NF-κB, AP-1 and MAPK pathways in human proximal tubular cells Archives of Toxicology (2016) doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1600-z 

---

I wish you a nice day

Third retraction for Queen Mary University of London professor, William Harvey Research Institute (WHRI) bigwig, protege of the late Nobelist Sir John Wayne, Chris Thiemermann.

All his coauthors are Italian, from University of Turin. Flagged by Aneurus Inconstans:

M Collino , E Benetti , M Rogazzo , F Chiazza , R Mastrocola , D Nigro , J C Cutrin, M Aragno, R Fantozzi, M A Minetto, C Thiemermann A non‐erythropoietic peptide derivative of erythropoietin decreases susceptibility to diet‐induced insulin resistance in mice British Journal of Pharmacology (2014) doi: 10.1111/bph.12888

The Retraction was published on 3 March 2024:

“Concerns were raised by third parties regarding duplicated portions of Figures 5 and 7. A review by the editors and the publisher confirmed that repeated patterns within the images indicate image manipulation and fabrication. The authors responded to an inquiry by the publisher, but were not able to provide original data. As such, the data for this study cannot be considered reliable and the journal is issuing this retraction. The authors do not agree with the retraction.”

In another case, an Elsevier journal was much more forthcoming for Thiemermann and his Turin associates. That is because this journal’s Editor-in-Chief is the Belgian professor Jacques Piette, who apparently always does this for cheaters because Piette’s own science is also fake.

Massimo Collino, Elisa Benetti, Mara Rogazzo, Raffaella Mastrocola , Muhammed M. Yaqoob, Manuela Aragno , Christoph Thiemermann, Roberto Fantozzi Reversal of the deleterious effects of chronic dietary HFCS-55 intake by PPAR-δ agonism correlates with impaired NLRP3 inflammasome activation Biochemical Pharmacology (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2012.10.014

Aneurus Inconstans received on 6 March 2024 this email from Francesco Papi, Elsevier’s Publishing Ethics Analyst:

“Together with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, I have carried out an investigation which has resulted in the decision of the editor to publish a corrigendum of figure 7 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2024.116060). The explanation provided by the corresponding author has been judged satisfactory by the editor. The findings of the work are not affected by such mistake and the conclusions remain valid.
I wish you a nice day.”

The Corrigendum indeed stated:

“The authors regret that they inadvertently duplicated two spots of the control group related to the beta-actin marker within the control+GW group in Fig. 7. They apologize for any inconvenience this error may have caused and wish to assure their commitment to upholding the integrity and accuracy of the research findings. The conclusions of the article remain valid and are not affected by this mistake.”

---

All authors disagree

Also, a retraction for another Queen Mary University of London professor, William Harvey Research Institute (WHRI) bigwig, protege of the late Nobelist Sir John Wayne – Mauro Perretti.

It is yet another Italian study, this time from University of Salerno. It was flagged on PubPeer by Elisabeth Bik in October 2022:

Raffaella Belvedere , Elva Morretta, Emanuela Pessolano, Nunzia Novizio, Alessandra Tosco, Amalia Porta, James Whiteford, Mauro Perretti, Amelia Filippelli, Maria Chiara Monti, Antonello Petrella Mesoglycan exerts its fibrinolytic effect through the activation of annexin A2 Journal of Cellular Physiology (2021) doi: 10.1002/jcp.30207 

The first author Raffaella Belvedere, now professor at the University of Salerno, replied on PubPeer right away, with “the uncropped image of the western blot shown in figure 3A as previously submitted in the platform of the journal”. Yes, it was fake.

The Retraction was published on 1 March 2024 (highlights mine):

“The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by third parties. Some flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Specifically, manipulations have been detected affecting the Western Blot experiment presented in Figure 3a, and the microscopy images presented in Figure 5 and Figure S7. The corresponding author, Antonello Petrella, acknowledged not having noticed the anomalies at earlier stages and collaborated with the investigation.

The original experimental data related to the concerns identified were no longer available; the authors have performed new Western Blot experiments. However, based on the editorial evaluation, the provided material failed to adequately address the concerns. For instance, the data intended to replicate the findings in Figure 3a were provided at a quality too low to ensure its accuracy. Furthermore, the concerns regarding the manipulation of microscopy images in Figure 5 and Figure S7 remained entirely unaddressed. Accordingly, the editors no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data presented in the article and consider the conclusions to be invalid.

Antonello Petrella, on behalf of all authors, believes that the conclusions of the article are not affected by the identified issues, in part also corroborated by the new data; all authors disagree with the decision to retract the article.”

Let me explain what the bit in bold means. This Wiley journal was OK with raw data being unavailable for (at that time) ONE YEAR OLD paper, and offered to authors to provide replacements to fix the forged figures. But the new forgeries authors submitted were even less credible.

---

There are outstanding questions

Retraction for the Campo brothers at University of Messina in Italy: Giuseppe Campo and Salvatore Campo, full professor of biochemisry and associate professor of molecular biology, respectively. Read about them here:

The paper was flagged on PubPeer in May 2023 by Aneurus Inconstans:

Giuseppe M. Campo, Angela Avenoso, Salvatore Campo, Angela D’Ascola, Paola Traina , Carmela A. Rugolo , Alberto Calatroni Differential effect of molecular mass hyaluronan on lipopolysaccharide-induced damage in chondrocytes Innate Immunity (2010) doi: 10.1177/1753425909340419 

The Retraction was issued by the publisher Sage on 29 February 2024:

“Sage was alerted to a discussion surrounding the article on PubPeer.

Following an internal investigation, several concerns have been raised about multiple images in the article:

1. Figure 7B and 8B appear to have overlapping features across bands and lanes.

The authors provided some images representing findings underlying these figure panels, and some data underlying the graphs. Sage and the Journal Editor assessed these materials and determined that they do not resolve the concerns raised.

Due to the nature of the original concern, lack of appropriate raw images or data to resolve the concerns raised, the Journal Editor believes there are outstanding questions about the validity of the findings and retracts this article.

The authors did not agree with the retraction.”

---

Jesus wept

MDPI’s Research Integrity Jesus retracts a paper. Jesus Garcia-Cano, journal relations specialist at MDPI, featured in earlier Friday Shorts, where he, among other things, denied authors a correction by inventing fake COPE guidelines.

In his past as researcher in the lab of Ricardo Sánchez-Prieto at Alberto Sols Biomedical Research Institute, Jesus co-authored some naughty stuff. See Sanchez-Pieto’s PubPeer record for reference. After I wrote about Jesus’s bad science, he and an MDPI lawyer threatened me with criminal lawsuits for uttering Jesus’ name in vain (seriously!).

Now MDPI can sue Springer Nature for using Jesus’ name on a retraction.

M A De La Cruz-Morcillo , M L L Valero , J L Callejas-Valera , L Arias-González , P Melgar-Rojas , E M Galán-Moya , E García-Gil , J García-Cano , R Sánchez-Prieto P38MAPK is a major determinant of the balance between apoptosis and autophagy triggered by 5-fluorouracil: implication in resistance Oncogene (2012) doi: 10.1038/onc.2011.321 

The retraction was published on 5 March 2024:

“The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns have been raised regarding the flow cytometry and western blot data presented in the figures, specifically:

• Fig. 2e SB203580 Control and 5-FU plots appear highly similar to Fig. 4d HCT116 p53++ DMSO and 5-FU plots;
• Fig. 3a and f Tubulin blots appear to overlap;
• Fig. 3b and 4a Tubulin blots appear highly similar;
• Fig. 3b p38MAPK appears highly similar to Fig. 3e Tubulin;
• Fig. 3e p38MAPK appears highly similar to Fig. 3a and f Tubulin;
• Fig. 6e HT29 5-FU Control and SB203580 plots appear highly similar.

The authors have stated that the similarities occurred due to errors in figure preparation and provided the original flow cytometry data for validation. However, the original western blot data are no longer available.

Due to the number of errors in the figures, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the presented data.

M A de la Cruz-Morcillo, M L L Valero, L Arias-González, P Melgar-Rojas, E M Galán-Moya, E García-Gil, J García-Cano and R Sánchez-Prieto do not agree to this retraction. J L Callejas-Valera has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.”

Jesus does not agree. And Jesus is a publication ethics expert.

---

Did not agree to, nor were aware of

Wiley retracted a paper:

Tae Seob Kim, Seung Soo Kim, Cheol Jeong, Yu Kwan Song Expert consensus on the facial rejuvenation using the Mint Lift^® in Koreans: Perspectives of plastic surgeons Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (2021) doi: 10.1111/jocd.14072

The Retraction notice from 1 March 2024 explained:

“The retraction has been made because the listed co-authors stated they did not agree to, nor were aware of, the article’s publication, nor were involved in the corresponding research described. The identity of the person who submitted the manuscript remains unknown. Accordingly, the information provided about authors´ conflict of interest and patients´ consent for publication are not reliable. The conclusions of this manuscript are considered invalid.”

That is all very awful, how good of Wiley to have defended the real victims’ honour here. Oh wait. What is this Mint Lift paper from 2022, by same authors, and why is it citing the retracted study they never wrote?

---

Science Breakthroughs

Men and women’s brains do work differently

March 8th is, as you know, International Women’s Day.

Here is a peer-reviewed contribution from Stanford and US National Academy of Sciences to the struggle for gender equality:

Srikanth Ryali , Yuan Zhang , Carlo De Los Angeles , Kaustubh Supekar , Vinod Menon Deep learning models reveal replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2024) doi: 10.1073/pnas.2310012121

“Sex is an important biological factor that influences human behavior, impacting brain function and the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders. However, previous research on how brain organization differs between males and females has been inconclusive. Leveraging recent advances in artificial intelligence and large multicohort fMRI (functional MRI) datasets, we identify highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network. Our findings advance the understanding of sex-related differences in brain function and behavior.”

Naturally, all authors except the second are male. You need certain intellectual capacities to do high-flying research like this. Never mind that other studies failed to find differences between male and female brains, and wherever someone claimed to see differences, they were swiftly debunked. Those studies didn’t use AI!

Here is the Stanford press release from 20 February 2024:

““A key motivation for this study is that sex plays a crucial role in human brain development, in aging, and in the manifestation of psychiatric and neurological disorders,” said Vinod Menon, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Stanford Cognitive and Systems Neuroscience Laboratory. “Identifying consistent and replicable sex differences in the healthy adult brain is a critical step toward a deeper understanding of sex-specific vulnerabilities in psychiatric and neurological disorders.” […]

While the team applied their deep neural network model to questions about sex differences, Menon says the model can be applied to answer questions regarding how just about any aspect of brain connectivity might relate to any kind of cognitive ability or behavior. He and his team plan to make their model publicly available for any researcher to use.

“Our AI models have very broad applicability,” Menon said. “A researcher could use our models to look for brain differences linked to learning impairments or social functioning differences, for instance — aspects we are keen to understand better to aid individuals in adapting to and surmounting these challenges.”

This sounds very much like an advice not employ women in certain intellectually demanding jobs and not to waste money on female education. Of course this was picked up by the media:

• “Men and women’s brains do work differently, scientists discover for first time” – The Telegraph
• “Men’s and women’s brains do work differently, new research proves” – New York Post
• “Stanford study confirms men and women’s brains function differently: ‘Sex plays a crucial role'” – FOX News
• “Proof men and women really are ‘wired differently’: Brain scans show differences in regions responsible for daydreaming, memory and decision making, study finds” – Daily Mail

By the way, also England’s greatest research ethics hero of all times, Stuart Ritchie, also once proved that male brains are different from female, and it is due to genetic reasons that only men like him can be geniuses, but women can’t (Ritchie et al 2018). Mentioned here:

---