The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is currently working on updating its guidelines on Expressions of Concern (EoC).
EoC are becoming a very popular tool with editors, for cases which are too fraudulent to be corrected, but where retractions are perceived as unfair. These EoC signal editorial responsibility where there is actually a refusal to take any. It seems, the editors simply see it as cruel and unjust to punish a fellow white man with a retraction.
Originally, EoC were meant as a temporary solution for the time period when the evidence of alleged data manipulation, plagiarism, or peer review manipulation is being evaluated. Once concerns are proven, a retraction should replace the EoC. Not anymore. COPE now officially advises the publishers to work with permanent EoC, in cases where it is known that the paper is fraudulent or even papermilled (see January 2025 Shorts), but where a retraction is seen as too much of a hassle.
COPE openly advises journals to issue permanent Expressions of Concern in cases “where conclusive evidence cannot be obtained”. Such cases are rare to non-existent in reality. Either the images or gel bands are of such similarity that they must be duplicated, or they are not. If the former, the data manipulation is proven, and fraud always affects the conclusions. In theory. In practice, the authors of fraudulent papers are often bigwig heavyweights, protected by important research institutions, or they threaten to sue. Basically, as an editor you have a problem the cheaters are white.
COPE, the publishers’ Trojan horse, calls to abolish retractions
Four private scientists without any agenda whatsoever published a research result preprint on the portal BioRxiv. The “new results” reported in the article are actually new ideas which are just as good as any research results, because they are supposed to bring the field of scholarly communication forward. The question is, where to, and why…
I have collected some cases of rather outrageous editorial decisions, almost all in cancer research. there, retractions were decided against simply because the perpetrators were fellow western professors.
Of course also whiteys get slapped with retractions sometimes, mostly when their research institution or another authority asks for retractions. My theory is that retractions are a readout for how many friends a fraudster has lost.
But still, publishers and journal editors sometimes take outrageous decisions to save papers with white authors, while similar kind of fraud from Asia gets rightly retracted without a second thought. No wonder that Asian papermills offer gift authorships to white authors in Europe and North America – this not only makes the papermill product easier to publish, it also serves long term as a security guarantee against retractions.
In fact, here is COPE openly advising to issue EoC instead of retractions even for papermill products:
“…if an authorship dispute also involves concerns about the integrity of data (such as in cases of authorship for sale), an Expression of Concern may be appropriate.”
Now, let me show you some examples of outrageous EoC decisions.
White surgeons
In October 2024, Elsevier and the learned society American Association of Thoracic Surgery (AATS) issued an Expression of Concern for a 2010 paper by Paolo Macchiarini and Martin Birchall. It is not any paper, but a key preclinical study which claims that Macchiarini’s technology of trachea transplants with decellurised cadaveric donor grafts was established as both safe and effective in pigs, and before first human patients were treated in 2008. It is also the only unretracted publication in the “cumulative” MD dissertation of Macchiarini’s student and acolyte Philipp Jungebluth, which gives the Hannover Medical School (MHH) an excuse not to revoke Jungebluth’s medical doctorate degree. To be on the safe side, MHH also terminated its investigation of this paper. Here it is:
Tetsuhiko Go , Philipp Jungebluth , Silvia Baiguero , Adelaide Asnaghi , Jaume Martorell , Helmut Ostertag , Sara Mantero , Martin Birchall, Augustinus Bader, Paolo Macchiarini Both epithelial cells and mesenchymal stem cell-derived chondrocytes contribute to the survival of tissue-engineered airway transplants in pigs Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.002
Patricia Murray fought for many years to get this paper retracted, referencing the many instances of lies, inconsistencies and outright data manipulation in that study. At her last attempt, the Liverpool professor was rudely dismissed as a scientifically ignorant hysteric by the Managing Editor of Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (JTCS), Spencer McGrath, on the advice of COPE no less. Read about the affair here:
American Association of Thoracic Surgery: Macchiarini method works!
“The reviewers and editors agree there is not clear evidence to support Dr Murray’s claim.”
More than a year later, in October 2024, JTCS issued this Statement of Concern:
“Editorial Expression of Concern: The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Journal) was notified of concerns regarding a study involving 30 pigs that was approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee and the Bioethics Committee of the University of Barcelona. The Journal wishes to publicly share the concerns raised so readers can consider the concerns themselves. The Journal tried to contact the active authors for additional information on the study; however, the authors were not responsive to our requests.
In the article, the authors describe the pig study as being undertaken before another study reporting a case of a tracheal graft implantation in a human subject published by The Lancet in 2008 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61598-6). In October 2023, The Lancet retracted the mentioned article (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02341-3) as well as the 5-year follow-up article (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62033-4).
In addition, concerns regarding Figure 4 have been raised that question whether the bioengineered tracheas presented by the authors are bioengineered matrices. Figure 4 allegedly presents cross-sections of the stated bioengineered matrices rather than longitudinal sections crossing the anastomoses with the native trachea.
The Journal has sought guidance from and discussed these concerns with the Committee on Publication Ethics. After those communications and additional consideration by the editors, the Journal has decided to publish this Expression of Concern regarding this article.”
The case is closed, there will never be a retraction.
Sad fact is: COPE must really hate Murray and her colleague Peter Wilmshurst. The latter was even kicked out as (founding!) member of COPE, in retaliation. That’s because the two whistleblowers fought to get another major trachea transplant paper by Macchiarini, Jungebluth and Birchall retracted, against the total resistance by The Lancet, whose Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton is another COPE foundling member. Even the UK Parliament got involved and demanded answers from the Lancet editor. Read here:
Peter Wilmshurst vs Macchiarini cult at The Lancet
The 2008 Lancet paper of Paolo Macchiarini and Martin Birchall about the world first trachea transplant might end up retracted. Until recently, the journal’s editor Richard Horton used to ignore and suppress “non peer-reviewed” evidence, but due to combined pressure of activism, media and politics, things started to move.
All in vain, the Elsevier journal didn’t bulge and COPE cheered it on:
“The journal should resist being stampeded into a quick decision and should not be pressured to action by threats. Just because an author’s work has been found to be ethically compromised, that does not necessarily mean that every paper from that period is compromised. It also does not mean that earlier work was necessarily compromised.”
Back in 2019, COPE and The Lancet thought that they won and succeeded in bravely defending the papers and honour of white surgeons. But Murray and Wilmshurst returned with a new plan, and in late 2023, the Swedish authorities stepped in and requested a retraction. This time, Horton had no choice but to comply, and not one but two Macchiarini papers in The Lancet were retracted.
Let’s have a look at some other cases where clearly fraudulent papers were fixed with EoCs instead of retractions.
American whiteys
Take this paper by Ronald DePinho, former president of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, a multimillionaire and the most influential cancer researcher in USA whose word is valued by Trump.
A coauthor is DePinho’s mentee is Ned Sharpless, who used to be director of NIH’s National Cancer Institute (NCI) and then director of FDA in the first Trump administration:
Sharpless Ned, or how half a mouse died
“The President’s goal of ending cancer as we know it today is grounded, in part, in the work of scientific discovery that Ned Sharpless has led at NCI”
The first author Robert Bachoo is now associate professor at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center:
Robert M Bachoo , Elizabeth A Maher , Keith L Ligon, Norman E Sharpless , Suzanne S Chan , Mingjian James You, Yi Tang , Jessica DeFrances , Elizabeth Stover , Ralph Weissleder, David H Rowitch, David N Louis, Ronald A DePinho Epidermal growth factor receptor and Ink4a/Arf Cancer Cell (2002) doi: 10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00046-6
Mycosphaerella arachidis: “Figure 1, 3, and 4: ImageTwin.ai is able to identify multiple overlaps in different experiments, see coloured rectangles.”
On 9 December 2024, Cell Press published this Expression of Concern (highlight mine):
“In December 2023, we, the editors of Cancer Cell, were made aware of multiple instances of image duplications in cell morphology panels within Figures 1A, 3A, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D. We subsequently queried the corresponding author, Dr. Ronald DePinho, who has moved to a different institution since the publication. He and his co-authors were unable to locate the original raw images in question, as they date back over two decades. However, they retrieved photocopies of laboratory notebooks from September 1999 to December 2000, which document the experiments related to these duplicated images. Our review of these records confirms that descriptions of these experiments were documented contemporaneously and are consistent with the reported findings.
The authors believe that the duplications resulted from errors in image assignment during the figure presentation process, given that the images of cell cultures were captured using a hand-held camera through a microscope lens at that time.
After careful consideration, we find the authors’ explanation for the duplications reasonable and have decided not to retract the paper. We apologize for the lengthy resolution process. This Editorial Note serves to alert the community to the duplicated images and to communicate our final decision on this matter.”
Who are you going to believe, a white American millionaire, or your own lying eyes.
We remain at MD Anderson. Their professor Paul J. Chiao learned the skills from James L. Abbruzzese, distinguished professor emeritus and chief of the Division of Medical Oncology at Duke University. Both men featured in this article:
Cancer at Duke? Better call Sal!
“I have NEVER faked data. If you wish to carry on what appears to be a vendetta please supply me the name of your lawyer and I will have my lawyer contact him.” – Sal Pizzo, Duke University
by Aneurus September 25, 2024September 23, 2024
Abbruzzese and Chiao managed to avoid retractions so far, and here are two EoC:
Zhe Chang , Zhongkui Li , Xiaoyang Wang , Ya’an Kang , Yuhui Yuan , Jiangong Niu , Huamin Wang , Deyali Chatterjee , Jason B. Fleming , Min Li , James L. Abbruzzese , Paul J. Chiao Deciphering the mechanisms of tumorigenesis in human pancreatic ductal epithelial cells Clinical Cancer Research (2013) doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-0032
“Figures 1C and 5A. p14 and p14ARF panels much more similar than expected after vertical resizing. The accompanying beta-actin panels appear different even after vertical resizing.”
An Editor’s Note was issued on 2 December 2024:
“The editors are publishing this note to alert readers to a concern about this article (1): the Western blots representing p14 in Fig. 1C and p14ARF in Fig. 5A appear to be the same.”
In this case, the EoC was much longer:
Davide Melisi, Qianghua Xia , Genni Paradiso , Jianhua Ling , Tania Moccia , Carmine Carbone , Alfredo Budillon , James L. Abbruzzese , Paul J. Chiao Modulation of pancreatic cancer chemoresistance by inhibition of TAK1 JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr243
On 9 December 2024, this Editor’s Note appeared:
“In September 2024, a reader contacted the journal about similarities in the bands for beta-actin in Figure 1B and I. They also referred to a post on PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/publications/CF2ADDEEA370F6E995F4D46ADB7B27). The Editors contacted the authors, who admitted the image in Figure 1B was reused in Figure 1I. They explained that the experimental conditions evaluated in 1B and I were identical. These figures represent the expression of TAK1 (Figure 1B) and cIAP-2, cleaved Caspase 3, cleaved PARP1, and TAK1 (Figure 1I) in protein samples extracted from the same cells under identical TAK1 expression conditions. Consequently, the beta-actin loading control image used in both panels was derived from the same blot, as these were not separate biological replicates. When the research was conducted, they deemed it unnecessary to run a separate blot for the beta-actin loading control.
The Editors disagree that a separate blot for beta-actin was unnecessary and advise readers to be cautious when interpreting these results.”
Abbruzzese is a rich white American man. He is entitled to get his will. No retractions.
German whiteys
Two German bigwig oncologists under investigation managed to avoid any retractions so far. They deployed armies of top lawyers and fight back even against Expressions of Concern.
Fulda & Debatin: Reproducibility of Results in Medical and Biomedical Research
“Basic and advanced training for researchers should focus much more on self-reflection, openness and a culture of error acceptance.”
Our heroes are:
Simone Fulda, who in February 2024 was made to resign as President of the University of Kiel over my reporting of her massive PubPeer record, and who earlier this year was declared officially innocent by one of her former employers, the University of Frankfurt, where she used to be Vice-Rector for Research (read January 2025 Shorts).
Fulda’s mentor Klaus-Michael Debatin, former Vice-Pesident of Medicine, Gender and Diversity (sic!) at the University Hospital Ulm, who last year retired with pomp and circumstances as professor and director of the Clinic for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (read March 2024 Shorts).
The main investigation takes place at the University of Ulm, where most of the bad papers by Fulda & Debatin were published. Their ombudsman was seen publicly complaining about Debatin and Debatin’s friend Guido Kroemer (!) being “pilloried” on PubPeer and “mercilessly prejudged by certain science journalists” on For Better Science, while describing me and the sleuth Claire Francis as evil character driven by “old quarrels, desires for revenge” (read March 2024 Shorts). So you can imagine which way this Ulm investigation is going.
Thus, it is no wonder that Fulda and Debatin are being saved with EoC, even if they clearly don’t appreciate the help. here are two such EoC in Oncogene, whose chief editor Justin Stebbing is certainly someone who can sympathise:
H Ehrhardt , S Häcker , S Wittmann , M Maurer , A Borkhardt , A Toloczko , K-M Debatin , S Fulda, I Jeremias Cytotoxic drug-induced, p53-mediated upregulation of caspase-8 in tumor cells Oncogene (2008) doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210666
Actinopolyspora biskrensis: “The same panels appear in both Figure 3 and Figure 5c, however the conditions seem to be different.”
Aleiodes fuscomedius: “Figures 1a and 2e. Much more similar, after horizontal resizing, and different than expected.”
The Expression of Concern was issued on 4 July 2024, Fulda did not agree to it:
“The Editors-in-Chief would like to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding some of the western blot data presented in figures included in this article, specifically:
Fig. 1a CADO and CEM-TR a-Tubulin blots appear highly similar.
Fig. 1a J-TR Casp-8 MTX+ band appears highly similar to Fig. 2e J-TR Casp-8 MTX 72h.
Fig. 1a CEM-TR and CADO Casp-8 MTX+ bands appear highly similar to Fig. 5c Casp-8 Control group (also treated with MTX) in the same cell lines.
Figs. 3 and 5c CADO Casp-8 and a-Tubulin blots appear highly similar.
The authors have stated that the possible duplications were unintentional and confirmed that the issues raised do not affect the results and conclusions of the article. The original data are no longer available due to the age of the article (16 years), in line with rules of the German Research Foundation. Readers are therefore advised to interpret these figures with caution.”
Oncogene EiC Justin Stebbing, a hypocrite of research integrity?
‘The results have been replicated by ourselves or others, so the image manipulation is irrelevant.’ – Justin Stebbing, double bluffing
Here is another EoC in the same journal:
M Kilic , H Kasperczyk , S Fulda, K-M Debatin Role of hypoxia inducible factor-1 alpha in modulation of apoptosis resistance Oncogene (2007) doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210008
Actinopolyspora biskrensis: “A portion of a band in Figure 4a and Figure 5a (outlined in red) appear to share the same source”
Found by another reader
On 12 December 2024, the Expression of Concern informed that neither Fulda nor Debatin agreed to it:
“The Editors-in-Chief would like to alert the readers that concerns have been raised regarding some of the blots presented in Fig. 4a and 5a, specifically:
Fig. 4a A204:Hif-1alpha and Fig. 5a A204wtp53:Hif-1alpha blots appear highly similar;
Fig. 4a A673:Hif-1alpha lanes 5-7 and Fig. 5a: A673:Hif-1alpha lanes 2-4 appear highly similar.
As the original raw data are no longer available due to the age of the article, in accordance with German regulations, the authors have been unable to conclusively address this issue. Readers are therefore advised to interpret these results with caution.”
I predict that the EoC are the worst to happen to these German oncologists and that Fulda and Debatin won’t retract a single paper, simply because they will be both found largely innocent save for minor mistakes in supervision, with all conclusions unaffected. But I am happy to be proven wrong.
Italian Whitey
Giorgio Zauli, the former Rector of the University of Ferrara in Italy, is not just a massive science cheater, he is also an unhinged sociopath, who transformed his university in a miniature totalitarian state, run by his loyal sycophants.
La Piovra Ferrarese di Giorgio Zauli
Giorgio Zauli’s rectorship term ends. Will research fraud, media harassment and whistleblower persecution be a thing of the past at the University of Ferrara? Ma dai, basta cazzate.
Following my first reporting in May 2018, Zauli (together with his associate Paola Secchiero) reported me to the Italian police (see below), and since then that bully and his university have been suing everyone who dared to criticise them. One Italian journalist was sentenced by Italian justice for my articles on For Better Science (sic!). One Zauli-critical Italian professor is currently being sued by the University of Ferrara for calling it a “sewer”. And it is the Italian public which pays Zauli’s lawyers.
The Ferrara investigators naively tried to help Zauli by attesting him only minor clerical mistakes which never affected any conclusions. But Zauli expected nothing less but to be declared a martyr victim of a foreign conspiracy, so the investigative report was destroyed by a decree, and the ethics commission dissolved.
Thus, it is absolutely no wonder that despite around 45 falsified papers rotting on PubPeer since 2018, Zauli didn’t have to retract a single one of them. Some were corrected.
And the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) expressed their concerns:
Rebecca Voltan , Paola Secchiero, Barbara Ruozi , Flavio Forni , Chiara Agostinis , Lorenzo Caruso , Maria Angela Vandelli , Giorgio Zauli Nanoparticles engineered with rituximab and loaded with Nutlin-3 show promising therapeutic activity in B-leukemic xenografts Clinical Cancer Research (2013) doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0015
Here the Editor’s Note from 1 July 2022:
“The editors are publishing this note to inform readers of a concern about this article (1): the tubulin control in Fig. 2A is similar to both the EHEB tubulin and the JVM2 tubulin panels in Fig. 2C of the authors’ earlier work (2).”
Again, same journal:
Giorgio Zauli, Rebecca Voltan , Raffaella Bosco , Elisabetta Melloni , Sandra Marmiroli , Gian Matteo Rigolin , Antonio Cuneo , Paola Secchiero Dasatinib plus Nutlin-3 shows synergistic antileukemic activity in both p53 wild-type and p53 mutated B chronic lymphocytic leukemias by inhibiting the Akt pathway Clinical Cancer Research (2011) doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-10-2572
The Editor’s Note from 1 July 2022 alleviated all concerns:
“The editors are publishing this note to inform readers of a concern about this article (1). Figures 3A and 4B contain three sets of similar tubulin control panels: the left panels of Fig. 3A MEC-2 tubulin and the P-ERK 1/2 tubulin panels in Fig. 4B; the right panels of Fig. 3A JVM-2 tubulin and the P-p38 tubulin panels in Fig. 4B; and the right panels of Fig. 3A BJAB tubulin and the P-Akt tubulin panels in Fig. 4B.”
And this one, completely fraudulent:
Paola Secchiero , Rebecca Voltan , Maria Grazia Di Iasio , Elisabetta Melloni , Mario Tiribelli , Giorgio Zauli The oncogene DEK promotes leukemic cell survival and is downregulated by both Nutlin-3 and chlorambucil in B-chronic lymphocytic leukemic cells Clinical Cancer Research (2010) doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-3031
Hoya camphorifolia: “The commenter has noted the unexpected similarity between lanes of Figures 6A and 5C, here shown with enhanced contrast. I have added part of Figure 4A, for further consideration (at right).”
Hoya camphorifolia: : “Tubulin / DEK slice from Figures 4A / 6A…
…Another sighting: Figure 1B from Voltan et al. (2010).”
Also here, an Editor’s Note from 1 July 2022:
“The editors are publishing this note to inform readers of concerns about this article (1). Figures 5C and 6A contain two sets of similar control blots: p53 Nutlin-3 scr.+ in Fig. 5C and p53 Nutlin-3 24 h in Fig. 6A; and tubulin Nutlin-3 DEK+ in Fig. 5C and tubulin Nutlin-3 48 h in Fig. 6A. In addition, the siRNA tubulin scr. 24-hour and 48-hour bands in Fig. 4A are similar to the Normal B cells DEK Nutlin-3 24-hour and 48-hour bands in Fig. 6A.”
Despite Zauli being a dangerous bully with access to unlimited university funds to sue everyone, it is unlikely that his legal threats are the real reason for the total absence of any retractions. AACR or other US societies are unlikely to be afraid of Italian courts.
Rather, while medical editors may overrule a whitewashing decision from a university in India or China, they will never do this for a fellow whitey.
AACR conjures undead Count Fakula Michael Karin
What better distraction than the COVID-19 pandemic to revive one of the spookiest parasites in cancer research? AACR uses the COVID-19 cover to award Michael Karin, for his over 50-paper-strong record of data fakery.
Belgian Whiteys
The Belgian professor Carine Van Lint of University of Brussels has many papers on PubPeer, and so far she had to retract only one where she is not even among the main authors (read May 2023 Shorts). As you will see, Van Lint was completely whitewashed by her university, which chose not to react to my emails but did fight to prevent a retraction.
We don’t know what Van Lint and her University of Brussels threatened the editors with, but this travesty was fixed with an EoC:
Véronique Goffin , Dominique Demonté , Caroline Vanhulle , Stéphane De Walque , Yvan De Launoit , Arsène Burny , Yves Collette , Carine Van Lint Transcription factor binding sites in the pol gene intragenic regulatory region of HIV-1 are important for virus infectivity Nucleic Acids Research (2005) doi: 10.1093/nar/gki720
Actinopolyspora biskrensis: “There seem to be some unexpected similarities in the m2 and m3 lanes of Figure 2B. Shown below with false color.”
On 10 December 2024 this massive Editor’s Note was published:
“The Editors were alerted in May 2023 about possible issues with two figures, as detailed below and in an Expression of Concern1:
Figure 2B: The lanes m1 and m5 appear similar. The lanes m2 and m3 appear similar.
Figure 4B: The lanes U937 Control and U937 None appear similar.
The Editors analysed the figure and noted splice lines and areas of similarity. Images resulting from that analysis are provided below, along with the published images.
graphic
Figure 2B: top panel, published figure. Middle panel: zoom of the published blot. Lower panel, zoom of the published blot after Equalize adjustment. Arrows point to splice lines.
graphic
Figure 4B: left panel, zoom of the published blot. Right panel, zoom of the published blot after Gradient Map adjustment. Arrows point to identical artifacts.
In Figures 2B and 4B, there are obvious splice lines. In Figure 4B, there are indications that the first and third lanes may be identical, except for some brightness/contrast adjustment.
Figure 2B is the same experiment as Figure 2C confirming the validity of the results. The only difference is that extracts are from different lymphoid cell lines (A3.01 in Figure 2B and Raji in Figure 2C).
Figure 4B is a simple in vitro experiment to show that a specific complex that binds to sequence element HS7 contains the transcription factor Pu.1. Other experiments in the paper show (i) Pu.1 binding to HS7 in vivo (Figure 8) and (ii) functional activity of Pu.1 on HS7 (Figure 12). These results independently corroborate the conclusions from Figure 4B.
The Editors contacted the authors, who could not provide the original data because the experiments were conducted over 20 years ago.
The Editors referred the matter to the authors’ institution, which determined that the alterations were not deliberately fraudulent and had a limited impact on the article’s discussion and scope. The institution concluded that there was insufficient justification to recommend retracting the article.
However, while the issues described above may not affect the results or conclusion of the study, in the absence of original data, the Editors advise readers to examine Figures 2B and 4B with care.
Julian E. Sale, Barry L. Stoddard
Senior Executive Editors
Obviously, the editors tried to put up a fight but gave in to legal threats, or rather the publisher Oxford University Press made them give in.
Bologna cover-up at Oxford University Press
This is the second part of the Bologna whistleblower account. As the university was burying their own misconduct findings, Oxford University Press and their ignoble editor were busy punishing and gaslighting the whistleblower.
Elsewhere in Brussels, Fabrice Journé also succeeded avoiding a retraction. Read about him and his colleague**Ghanem Ghanem** at the Institut Jules Border of Université Libre de Bruxelles in January 2024 Shorts. They did lose a paper in Oncotarget, at that time an institutional investigation was ongoing (see June 2024 Shorts).
Journe was more lucky with Springer Nature:
Hichame Id Boufker , Laurence Lagneaux , Mehdi Najar , Martine Piccart, Ghanem Ghanem , Jean-Jacques Body , Fabrice Journé The Src inhibitor dasatinib accelerates the differentiation of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells into osteoblasts BMC Cancer (2010) doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-298
In October 2024, Journe triumphantly announced on PubPeer:
“The authors thank PubPeer for bringing this figure to their attention, which may raise certain questions. To avoid unnecessary debate, the authors have decided to conduct a new Western blot experiment, which is presented below, yielding results similar to those of the first version. In this case, no additional changes are needed for the body text or the legend.”
The editors were impressed. What does fake data matter when a Belgian man says he went and repeated the experiment 14 years on, and arrived to exactly the same conclusion, even if at different results (the drug effect is much weaker and doesn’t exist at all at 10-8 M dasatinib). But as we saw with Zauli, dasatinib results are supposed to be fake anyway.
So here is the Editorial Expression of Concern from 9 January 2025:
“The Editors are issuing this Editorial Expression of Concern to inform the readers that following the publication of this article, concerns regarding similarities in (a) Fig. 5A between left panel, p-Src (Control, Desatinib, 10 − 8 30 min) and right panel, Src (Control, Desatinib, 10 − 8 24 h), and (b) between Fig. 5a (Dasatinib, 10 − 8 ) and Fig. 5c (Control, p-Src) have been raised.
Due to the age of the article, raw data is not available for further analysis. However, the authors have been able to replicate the presented results in Fig. 5A.
The readers are therefore urged to take into consideration the above points when interpreting these results.”
The published figure was fake, the authors even admitted it. But it doesn’t matter because the raw data was unavailable. Yet somehow all the cell lines and reagents were still available for repeat experiments. Go figure.
My Liège is not so vile a sin
“The Board of Ethics and Scientific Integrity of University of Liège investigated the overlap between the aforementioned panels and recommended the article be corrected”
Canadian Whitey
The urologist Martin Gleave, distinguished professor at the University of British Columbia (UBC), Canada, published so much bad science that he may not be able to save all of it (see another October 2024 Shorts).
But Gleave did save this, with an EoC:
Y Kususda , H Miyake , M E Gleave , M Fujisawa Clusterin inhibition using OGX-011 synergistically enhances antitumour activity of sorafenib in a human renal cell carcinoma model British Journal of Cancer (2012) doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.209
An Editorial Expression of Concern was issued on 3 December 2024:
“The Editor-in-Chief would like to alert the readers that concerns have been raised regarding the similarity between Fig. 1c β-actin blot lanes 2-4 and Fig. 3b β-actin lanes 1-3, representing different treatment groups.
The original data are no longer available for validation due to the age of the article. Readers are therefore advised to interpret these results with caution.
All authors agree with this Editorial Expression of Concern.”
Again, just declare that your raw data has evaporated, and nobody will ever bother about your clearly manipulated figures.
Mr ACE2 Josef Penninger, Greatest Scientist of Our Time
As a young Wunderkind, Josef Penninger discovered the ACE2 receptor. Now he invented the cure for the coronavirus which will work in his hands where Big Pharma failed. He was never found guilty of research misconduct and never retracted a paper. Dr Penninger is a Genius making a COVID-19 vaccine.
French Whitey
The cancer researcher Carmen Garrido and Director of Exceptional Class Research at INSERM in Dijon, France, her French colleague Eric Solary, professor at University of Paris-Saclay and former research director at the Gustave Roussy Institute in Paris (see October 2024 Shorts about both), did retract a paper recently, in fact its coauthor was Martin Gleave mentioned above (see February 2025 Shorts).
But this travesty by Garrido and Solary was fixed with an EoC:
Arnaud Parcellier, Mathilde Brunet , Elise Schmitt , Edwige Col , Céline Didelot , Arlette Hammann , Keiko Nakayama , Keiichi I. Nakayama , Saadi Khochbin, Eric Solary , Carmen Garrido HSP27 favors ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation of p27Kip1 and helps S-phase re-entry in stressed cells The FASEB Journal (2006) doi: 10.1096/fj.05-4184fje
Fig 1A and 10
Fig 1D
Fig 1
Fig 7C
Garrido previously claimed on PubPeer that FASEB editors took her side:
“The answers to the comments for this paper were sent to the editors of the paper that were satisfied with our answers, which included a power point with the magnified figures. They considered the matter closed and that not scientific misconduct was involved. Carmen Garrido“
That was only partially true. On 15 January 2025, an Expression of Concern was issued:
“This Expression of Concern has been published due to concerns raised by a third party regarding highly similar image sections within Figures 1A, D, E, F, and H, Figures 5A and B, Figure 7C and Figure 10A; a potential duplication between Figure 1A and Figure 10A; and unacknowledged splicings within Figure 2B, and Figures 3A and B. The authors were informed about the concerns, and they were able to provide a satisfactory explanation and partial raw data to the concerns regarding Figures 1A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 1D. However, without an adequate explanation of the anomaly in the rest of the figures and in the absence of the original raw data, the journal team could not verify the authenticity of these figures and could not exclude that these concerns affect the related conclusions of the article. Therefore, the journal has decided to issue an Expression of Concern to inform and alert the readers.”
Also here, Garrido and her French colleagues got away with an EoC:
Marina Barrichon , Tarik Hadi , Maeva Wendremaire , Clémentine Ptasinski , Renaud Seigneuric , Guillaume Marcion , Marc Delignette , Jacques Marchet , Monique Dumas , Paul Sagot , Marc Bardou , Carmen Garrido, Frédéric Lirussi Dose-dependent biphasic leptin-induced proliferation is caused by non-specific IL-6/NF-κB pathway activation in human myometrial cells British Journal of Pharmacology (2015) doi: 10.1111/bph.13100
Figure 8A
Actinopolyspora biskrensis: “Supplemental Figure 2A may have a duplicated band (although they are cropped differently).”
Elegantly fixed with this Expression of Concern on 16 December 2024:
“The Expression of Concern has been agreed following an investigation based on concerns raised by a third party. The investigation revealed duplication between the P-STAT3 bands presented in the two western blots in Figure S2A. The two blots represent different conditions. Furthermore, the control bands representing NF-κB at 4 minutes and 50 minutes in Figure 8A originate from a different gel than the other bands in the figure. The western blot was not delineated to indicate the splice sites. The authors provided an explanation and some raw data. However, this was not considered satisfactory to remove doubt. Therefore, the journal has decided to issue an Expression of Concern to inform and alert the readers.”
And here is yet another publisher with concerns for Garrido’s career:
Jessica Gobbo , Guillaume Marcion , Marine Cordonnier , Alexandre M. M. Dias , Nicolas Pernet , Arlette Hammann , Sarah Richaud , Hajare Mjahed , Nicolas Isambert , Victor Clausse , Cédric Rébé , Aurélie Bertaut , Vincent Goussot , Frédéric Lirussi , François Ghiringhelli , Aurélie De Thonel , Pierre Fumoleau , Renaud Seigneuric , Carmen Garrido Restoring Anticancer Immune Response by Targeting Tumor-Derived Exosomes With a HSP70 Peptide Aptamer JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2016) doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv330
On 5 December 2025, this Expression of Concern was issued:
“In October 2024, a reader contacted the journal about similarities in the bands in Figure 4C, which were also raised on PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/publications/097CEB971004722B968A1617AE4D66). The journal is investigating these concerns in line with COPE guidance and is publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers while the outcome of the investigation is pending.”
The COPE reference is a common red flag for actual editorial inaction. There will likely be no resolution for this EoC. We have clues that Garrido was already whitewashed by her French employer, because in January 2025 she was awarded with a pink ribbon scholarship and celebrated in the national media.
Awards are often issued to science crooks when they are in trouble, to send a public message that the academic authorities are on their side.
Pravda of Jessus report, CNRS Politburo scared of own people
Following my recent article about attempts to fix data irregularities in the papers by CNRS’ chief biologist and director of l’Institut des sciences biologiques (INSB) Catherine Jessus, this state-owned French research institution, the biggest in Europe, now went full Pravda. Just as the notorious propaganda newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Pravda means…
Australian Whitey
In a case similar to Abbruzzese’s and Chiao’s, another white emeritus bigwig protected himself and his Chinese mentee. The hero is Peter Hersey, former research director at the Newcastle Melanoma Unit at the University of Newcastle in Australia, and his successor Xu Dong Zhang (read about this duo in October 2024 Shorts).
Can you believe this ridiculously fake paper was not retracted?
N M Mhaidat , X D Zhang , J Allen , K A Avery-Kiejda , R J Scott , P Hersey Temozolomide induces senescence but not apoptosis in human melanoma cells British Journal of Cancer (2007) doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604017
On 18 November 2024, the Editor-in-Chief and University of Glasgow professor Jeff Evans MB, BS, MD, FRCP, FRCPE, FRCPGlasg, FACP (UK), issued this Editorial Expression of Concern:
“The Editor-in-Chief is issuing this Editorial Expression of Concern to inform the readers about the following concerns:
a.Figures 2B and 4A, GAPDH bands appears to be similar;
b.Figure 2B, SK-mel-28 Pro-caspase-3 bands appear to be similar, and Figure 2B Cleaved Caspase-3, appears to have repetitive features;
c.Figure 2C PUMA MM200 lanes 1 and 2 appear to be similar;
d.GAPDH bands in Figure 2C, MM200 and and Figure 5D SK-mel-28 appears to be similar;
e.Figure 4A p53 lanes 2 and 3 appears to be similar
Due to age of article, raw images are not available for further analysis. Readers are therefore advised to interpret these results with caution.”
Do you think the editor would have done this for authors who were not as white and as rich as Hersey?
The Lancet, UNSW and Khachigian’s cancer cure
A dishonest cancer researcher. A dud cancer drug based on rigged lab data. A clinical trial in The Lancet. A greedy university which finds no misconduct. And a medical journal which tramples over patients.
Spanish whiteys
And not just for Hersey. Here another EoC-repaired paper in the same rotten journal by Springer Nature. Its authors are the Spanish bigwig and cancer cheater Manel Esteller, who until recently was Director of the Josep Carreras Leukaemia Research Institute, and remains chairman of genetics in the School of Medicine of the University of Barcelona. His coauthor is another Spanish cancer cheater Spaniard but based in USA, Carlos Cordon-Cardo, chair in pathology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Read here:
Manel Esteller, the Schrödinger cat of Barcelona
This text was first published on September 30th as Spanish translation on Hipertextual. The Spanish Institut d’Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL) in Barcelona has discovered a new application of the famous Schrödinger uncertainty theory, by extending quantum mechanics from single atoms to entire scientific publications and its authors. The traditional Schrödinger cat inside a box… Carlos Cordon-Cardo and Friends
The Schneider Rule teaches that if you wish to meet many science cheaters you must follow one of them.
And now, the paper with concerns raised and assuaged:
A Aleman , L Adrien , L Lopez-Serra , C Cordon-Cardo, M Esteller , T J Belbin , M Sanchez-Carbayo Identification of DNA hypermethylation of SOX9 in association with bladder cancer progression using CpG microarrays British Journal of Cancer (2008) doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604143
Fig 3
“Identical bands in row 1 (MSP) of Figure 3.”
Reused in:
Ainel Aleman , Virginia Cebrian , Miguel Alvarez , Virginia Lopez , Esteban Orenes , Lidia Lopez-Serra , Ferran Algaba , Joaquin Bellmunt , Antonio López-Beltrán , Pilar Gonzalez-Peramato , Carlos Cordon-Cardo, Javier García , Javier García Del Muro , Manel Esteller , Marta Sánchez-Carbayo Identification of PMF1 methylation in association with bladder cancer progression Clinical Cancer Research (2008) doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-0778
On 18 November 2024, an Editorial Expression of Concern informed the readers:
“The Editor-in-Chief is issuing an editorial expression of concern to alert readers that there appear to be unexpected similarities within Fig. 3, specifically,
MPS panels HT-1376 and TCCSUP look similar.
1st and 2nd RT-PCR panels look similar.
7th and 8th RT-PCR panels look similar.
5th and 6th tubulin panels look similar.
Given the age of the article, the authors no longer have access to their original data, making it impossible to verify or correct the images. Readers are advised to take caution when interpreting the content and conclusions of this article. The Authors did not state explicitly whether they agree to this Expression of Concern.”
Another Spanish cheater is the hepatologist Jordi Muntane, associate professor at the Institute of Biomedicine of Seville, who featured in this article because his research involves animal abuse:
Torturing Small Animals
Animal abuse and bad science go hand in hand. Meet professors Ute Moll, Jordi Muntané, Sam W Lee and others.
Well, Muntane gets away with corrections (see April 2023 Shorts), or with EoC like here:
Raúl González , Adolfo Cruz , Gustavo Ferrín , Pedro López-Cillero , Rubén Fernández-Rodríguez , Javier Briceño , Miguel A. Gómez , Sebastián Rufián , Manuel De La Mata , Antonio Martínez-Ruiz , Jose J.G. Marin , Jordi Muntané Nitric oxide mimics transcriptional and post-translational regulation during α-tocopherol cytoprotection against glycochenodeoxycholate-induced cell death in hepatocytes Journal of Hepatology (2011) doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2010.10.022
Muntane replied on PubPeer by posting “raw data”. I made a side-by-side comparison of it and the published figures with highlighted duplications. In Figure 4B, none of the gel bands in provided “raw data” seems to actually match the bands in the published figure. In Figures 5F and 10A, the bands flagged as duplicated look different in the “raw data” while the rest fits. Strange, no? As if someone faked raw data with modern Photoshop, as certain scientists routinely do these days when challenged.
Muntane then reacted to above comparison by posting a different “raw data” gel for Figure 4B, insisting:
“You can clearly see that lanes 2, 3, 5 and 6 correspond to different samples“
Turned out, both the published figure and the “raw data” were forged in Photoshop, see analysis by Aneurus Inconstans:
“The blue-boxed bands differ a bit to the lower side, but they largely overlap and the yellow-boxed elements in the background leave little to no space for doubts. This blot was obviously doctored.”
Elisabeth Bik found more forgeries in Muntane’s raw data:
“it is of additional concern that the first original you posted did not match the figures-of-concern, and that “replica 3” shows two lanes surrounded by a “halo” of a lighter background. Shown below with green arrows. These two lanes so happen to be exactly the two lanes that might have been duplicated.”
The paper contains outrageously fake figures. The corresponding author provided fake “raw data”, twice. But the journal editor instead lamented that he and Muntane can’t retaliate against the anonymous whistleblower. In July 2023, Muntane shared on PubPeer this email from this society-owned journal:
“Dear Prof. Muntané,
I am glad to inform you that the Editors have found your explanations satisfactory, and we consider this case now closed. We will inform the anonymous whistle blower accordingly.
I am afraid that I cannot help you identifying the source of the complaint, as it came from this email address: claire.francis[redacted], Clare Francis is a common pseudonym used in cases of whistle-blowing and it even has a Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Francis_(science_critic). I would like to thank you for your impeccable collaboration in this investigation.
With kind regards,
Joël
Joël Walicki, PhD
Head of Publications European Association for the Study of the Liver 7 rue Daubin | 1203 Geneva | Switzerland”
Eventually, Walicki and his society journal decided that a fellow white male peer can never be tainted with a retraction, so this Expression of Concern from 19 September 2024 closed the case:
“The editors have been alerted about potential figure inconsistencies in Figures 2B and C, 4B, and 5F. The authors have provided original blots and files for review. However, after a detailed analysis, it was not possible to definitively resolve the concerns mentioned. While these issues do not appear to fundamentally alter the conclusions of the manuscript, the integrity of the data and the resulting conclusions may be in question due to these concerns. Therefore, the journal considers the concerns to be sufficiently substantiated to warrant a formal notice alerting readers to this situation.”
Muntane triumphed on PubPeer:
“We have recommended to the Editor-in-Chief that a corrigendum be published. However, the Editor-in-Chief has decided to publish an “Expression of Concern” instead. […] Despite the “Expression of Concern,” I firmly believe in the reliability of our data. The study’s conclusions remain unaltered. Thank you for your time.”
Italian whiteys
And this, dear reader, is how COPE wants permanent EoC to be used. Retractions: yes, maybe for some people in Asia. But we must show concerns for the careers of whiteys like Muntane, Garrido, Hersey or Zauli. These scholars are busy curing cancer, you know.
I could name many more examples. Even utter failed scientists like Christoph Thiemerann (a German at Queen Mary University London) and his former mentee Salvatore Cuzzocrea (falled rector of University of Messina in Italy), who both lost many papers to retractions, still succeed salvaging some with EoC. Like this:
S. Cuzzocrea, T. Genovese, E. Mazzon, E. Esposito, C. Muià , M. Abdelrahman , R. Di Paola, P. Bramanti, C. Thiemermann Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3β Inhibition Attenuates the Development of Bleomycin-Induced Lung Injury International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology (2007) doi: 10.1177/039463200702000320
By Aneurus Inconstans and Condylocarpon amazonicum
The Expression of Concern from 15 September 2024 stated:
“Sage was made aware of a PubPeer discussion regarding the figures in the article. The concerns raised were:
• Potential image duplication across Figure 3D1 and Figure 4A
• Potential image duplication across Figure 3E1 and Figure 4B
At the request of the Publisher, the corresponding author supplied the images for the figures. The author noted that the images are not duplicate but consecutive sections. The author also noted that they were not the histologist who conducted the experiments and that the images provided were photographs, not digital copies.
As the images provided were of insufficient quality to verify the veracity of the images and the original experiments, the Journal Editor and Sage issue this expression of concern to alert readers.
The images provided have not allayed the concerns that Figures 3D1 and 4A, and Figures 3E1 and 4B may contain duplication.”
Cuzzocrea’s Magnificent Fall
“These unscrupulous charlatans in Messina should be fired on the spot tomorrow morning, forced to return twenty years of undeserved wages and sent to work the land” – Aneurus Inconstans
by Aneurus October 16, 2023February 25, 2025
Here the authors (who include the Italian MP Angela Ianaro!) likely nicked the figures from somewhere else, and needed to do some corner-cloning to match the journal formatting:
Salvatore Cuzzocrea, Barbara Pisano , Laura Dugo, Angela Ianaro , Nimesh S A Patel , Rosanna Di Paola, Tiziana Genovese , Prabal K Chatterjee, Massimo Di Rosa , Achille P Caputi, Christoph Thiemermann Rosiglitazone and 15‐deoxy‐Δ12,14‐prostaglandin J2, ligands of the peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor‐γ (PPAR‐γ), reduce ischaemia/reperfusion injury of the gut British Journal of Pharmacology (2003) doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0705419
The Expression of Concern from 2 December 2024:
“The expression of concern has been agreed due to third-party concerns related to the data presented in the article. Indicators for cloned image elements and inappropriate undeclared image modification were found in multiple image parts and several panels in Figures 1, 9, and 11. Due to the significant time elapsed since publication, the authors were unable to provide the original images. Therefore, the journal has decided to issue an Expression of Concern to inform and alert the readers.”
Is this really happenign only because these disreputable people are white? Isn’t COPE bothered that their EoC guidelines on avoiding the hassle may turn into a racist editorial malpractice?
I wrote to the members of the COPE board, twice, and none of them replied. To them, I was always the bad guy. The good guys must be the research fraudsters and the rotten editors who let them get away with anything. These people may have no values, but they create lots of value, with masses of publications which can be bought and sold for very good money.
If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!