Dozens of papers co-authored by Nobel laureate raise concerns

A number of analysis articles co-authored by Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Gregg Semenza are being investigated by publishers after web sleuths raised considerations concerning the integrity of pictures within the papers. Journals have already retracted, corrected or expressed considerations about 17 papers over the previous decade, and others are investigating image- and data-integrity points in additional research.

Semenza, who works at Johns Hopkins College in Baltimore, Maryland, shared the 2019 Nobel prize in physiology or drugs with two different scientists for locating how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability within the physique. He published his Nobel-prizewinning work in the 1990s; the most recent considerations deal with associated molecular-biology analysis printed since.

Picture integrity in scientific papers has come below rising scrutiny in recent times, as digital instruments have made it simpler for scientists to control their outcomes. There will be reliable causes to change pictures — to make outcomes clearer by elevating distinction or color stability, for instance. Figures may also be mistakenly mislabelled or turn out to be distorted whereas the paper is being ready. However image-editing instruments can be used to create fraudulent outcomes.

Elisabeth Bik, a outstanding image-integrity advisor in San Francisco, California, who’s amongst those that have identified irregularities in work co-authored by Semenza, says that the variety of corrections appears cheap for a 20-year interval in a profitable lab and lots of the considerations doubtlessly fall into “sloppy science territory”. However “5 retractions for papers with picture manipulation is far multiple ought to anticipate”, she provides.

Semenza didn’t reply to requests for remark from Nature’s information staff.

Picture considerations

Commenters on the web site PubPeer — the place customers scrutinize printed analysis, typically anonymously — have questioned pictures in 52 articles co-authored by Semenza that had been printed between 2000 and 2021. Since 2011, 17 of those papers have been retracted, corrected or had an expression of concern issued on them. The editorial notices cite the potential alteration, reuse or incorrect labelling of pictures displaying experimental outcomes. One other 15 of the papers are at present below investigation at their respective journals, Nature’s information staff has realized.

Throughout the 32 papers which have to this point drawn writer scrutiny, all listing Semenza as an writer, however there are numerous combos of various co-authors. Semenza is the corresponding or co-corresponding writer on 14 of those papers, which cowl analysis associated to the molecular mechanisms of oxygen sensing in various kinds of most cancers, and the operate and dysfunction of blood vessels, amongst different subjects. No wrongdoing has been confirmed, and with an absence of readability about who contributed what to the papers, it’s unclear who may need been answerable for any errors or issues with pictures. Corresponding authors do, nonetheless, carry accountability for guaranteeing a paper’s general integrity.

In Bik’s opinion, “the truth that there are a number of papers now retracted for manipulated pictures, and a number of other others nonetheless below investigation suggests an intention to mislead”.

Retractions and corrections

The primary put up about Semenza’s work appeared on PubPeer in 2015, however most posts are from 2020 and 2021. Journals had issued one retraction in 2011 and corrections in 2013 to 2 papers Semenza co-authored, however the remainder of the editorial notices have appeared previously two years.

In 2021, 5 journals issued corrections on 5 papers due to errors together with mislabelled knowledge and the obvious re-use of pictures. In March, the journal Most cancers Analysis corrected one paper and issued an expression of concern on one other after an investigation discovered that the authors inadvertently offered the identical knowledge as outcomes of various experiments, and reused knowledge from an earlier publication.

And final month, the Proceedings of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences USA retracted 4 cell biology papers co-authored by Semenza and corrected three others. The editorial notices describe considerations about figures together with doable knowledge duplication — the place one set of outcomes are used for multiple experiment — and ‘splicing’ of immunoblot pictures (when particular components of a picture are minimize out and relocated). In three of the 4 retraction notices, the authors say that up to date figures or confirmatory experiments are detailed in new articles uploaded to the bioRxiv preprint server. And in the entire retraction notices, the authors say they consider the general conclusions of the work stay legitimate however they’re retracting the work due to considerations over the figures.

A spokesperson for Johns Hopkins College says that the establishment “maintains the best requirements for accuracy and integrity in analysis” and takes allegations of impropriety critically. It provides that there are “strict protocols and processes in place to vet any such allegations and to find out an applicable path ahead, if needed”. They declined to reveal particulars of those assessment processes, or to touch upon whether or not there have been any particular allegations towards Semenza or his group.

Additional investigations

The dozen papers at present below investigation embody one paper in Nature Genetics and one paper in Oncogene, that are printed by Springer Nature (Nature’s information staff is unbiased of its writer). Science Signalling, which is wanting into two papers, has concluded an investigation into one and says that it’s going to publish an erratum quickly.

One other title, The Journal of Physiology, says that it’s reconsidering its place on two papers that it had beforehand investigated in gentle of the current retractions. A spokesperson for the journal says that it didn’t take motion after the primary investigation as a result of the unique knowledge had been unavailable and “the decision of the determine within the printed paper was too poor”.

Seven journals that printed 20 of the papers co-authored by Semenza which have obtained feedback on PubPeer instructed Nature that they had been conscious of the criticisms raised however declined to touch upon them. Three different journals made no remark, two mentioned they weren’t conscious of the allegations and weren’t investigating the papers and one didn’t reply to requests for remark.

A researcher within the discipline, who wished to stay nameless, says that they’re awaiting the outcomes of the investigations “with a combination of concern and curiosity”. (A number of different researchers within the discipline contacted by Nature’s information staff declined to debate the irregularities in papers co-authored by Semenza.)

The researcher says that Semenza’s most influential contribution to analysis on oxygen-sensing — the identification of a protein complicated referred to as HIF-1 — has stood the scientific take a look at of being reproduced and constructed upon by others. “The work below dialogue [on PubPeer] doesn’t have the identical broad significance, though its whole extent is giant.” It stays to be seen whether or not the issues with pictures have an effect on the papers’ conclusions, the scientist says.