宁夏医学院Jiang Yideng造假，其于2008年投在Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB)上的文章已被撤稿，其它几篇文章也有被陆续撤稿的嫌疑，该杂志对医学院的评价不置可否，造成极坏影响。看看吧！
The Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB) has issued the first retraction in its 85 year history, the journal reported in an editorial and a retraction notice in its December 1 issue. Although the authors’ institution told JEB their reuse of images was a careless error, the journal’s editor-in-chief called it a case of outright fraud.
Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB)建刊85年来第一次公布撤稿。公告发布在12月第一期中。虽然作者所在单位告知Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB)该事件是由于图像失误，但是，杂志主编认定这是一起公然造假。
The retracted paper — published by Yideng Jiang, a molecular biologist at Ningxia Medical College in Yinchuan, China, and his colleagues in the March 15, 2008 issue of the journal — investigated the effects of the amino acid-like compound homocysteine on the accumulation of cholesterol-rich macrophages known as foam cells.
被撤稿作者系中国银川宁夏医学院Jiang Yideng及其同事，文章发表在杂志 2008-3-15。研究了effects of the amino acid-like compound homocysteine on the accumulation of cholesterol-rich macrophages known as foam cells.
A reader alerted the journal’s editor-in-chief, Hans Hoppeler, a physiologist at the University of Bern in Switzerland, that “he had seen similar plots in other papers,” Hoppeler told The Scientist. “We tracked that, and it was quite obvious that the same plot was used in several publications.”
Hoppeler hired an independent expert — “a senior high level academic working with the same technology in a very close field, but unrelated to [JEB] or that particular area of research” — who found that figure 6B in the paper re-used Western blot bands that had been published the previous year in a paper in DNA and Cell Biology.
主编Hoppeler雇佣一位在相关领域资深的专家，该专家与本杂志无关。最终调查发现：文章中图6B中的Western blot条带已在之前发表在DNA and Cell Biology.中的一篇文章中使用。
Hoppeler said the re-used Western blots were also likely used in at least one other paper, but did not say which. “It depends where you set the level of evidence,” he noted.
Jiang has published only three other papers, a second paper in DNA and Cell Biology this year and two papers in Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica in May and September 2007, according to both ISI and Pubmed. Of these papers, The Scientist found only one other that showed Western blots analyzing similar data to that found in the retracted JEB study — figure 7 of the September 2007 Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica paper.
Jiang已经发表了另外三篇文章，另一篇于2008年在DNA and Cell Biology 上，另两篇在于2007年五月和九月发表在Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica上。读者发现发表在2008年JEB杂志上的Western blots数据与发表在2007 九月Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica 上的图7一致。
JEB — a journal with a 2007 impact factor of 2.97 according to ISI — also concluded that the paper contained discrepancies in the methods and materials section, and that other data were mislabeled or inappropriately presented.
At JEB’s request, Ningxia Medical College — the institute of six of the paper’s seven authors — carried out its own investigation, which concluded that the authors mistakenly reused the Western blot images due to carelessness in computer file-naming, and that further inaccuracies stemmed from limited English abilities, according to the published retraction.
Jiang and his coworkers confirmed the error in figure 6B and provided a revised image to JEB. They did not admit any other problems with the paper, said Hoppeler, who has served on JEB’s editorial board since 1995 and as editor-in-chief since 2004.
主编Hoppeler 已为JEB 杂志评审组工作13年，并于2004年任主编。他说:”Jiang及其合作者确认了图6B的错误，并提供了一张修改后的图像给JEB。但是他们并没有承认出现在在文章中的其它问题。”
JEB also contacted the West China College of Preclinical and Forensic Medical Sciences at Sichuan University, the institute of the paper’s last author, Shuren Wang, but never received acknowledgement of any of their letters or E-mails.
”I think this was fraud,” Hoppeler told The Scientist. But a retraction is “as far as we can go. We have the retraction, we know the facts are on the table, and it’s clear to anybody who will ever read the paper [that this was fraud]. Beyond that it’s not [JEB’s] responsibility to go any further.”
DNA and Cell Biology has been alerted of the problem, but no further actions have been taken, Hoppeler said.
另一杂志DNA and Cell Biology也已经知道了这个事件，但是还未采取行动。
Jiang’s 2007 DNA and Cell Biology paper has been cited 5 times according to ISI. Jiang’s retracted JEB paper has not been cited.
Jiang在2007年发表在DNA and Cell Biology上的文章已被引用5次。而被撤 稿件还未被引用。
JEB’s publisher, the Company of Biologists, declined to comment for this article. Jiang did not respond to E-mail requests for an interview.
Return to Top
When in doubt, ask to see raw data before approving a paper to be published
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2008-11-30 10:01:43]
I think beside the obvious responsibility of the authors for such scandalous misconduct, reviewers and editors overseeing such obvious attempts to betray the scientific community have to be blamed too. Proper peer review needs time!
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how much non-sense papers get published even in many highly visible journals. I think the public must be made aware of on how their tax money is being used in the name of Biological Science research. We should draw attention of The senators and Congressmen to these issues. It’s high time.
One way to counteract this is:
The Reviewers and Editors should be held accountable as the authors, when a published paper is revealed to be fraudulent.
Their names should be revealed for everyone to see – so they can be judged by their ethical lapses as the corrupted authors.
While reviewing an article for a journal, he Reviewers/Editors should have the rights to ask for RAW data/DNA constructs/details of the sources, screening data on antibodies or transgenics that have been made to be used in the studies, etc, should there be a need.
Implement this, and you will see, there will be a very FEW people left to continue in the profession of Biological Research, there will be LESS publications. But then there will be only honest ones left and quality research done.
Return to Top
More retractions expected
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2008-11-21 04:53:57]
Thank you to The Scientist for commenting on this retraction. The authors in question have published six relevant papers. Cursory and detailed examination will reward the careful observer with many more examples of “unscientific file-naming conventions and negligence”. One of the more creative involves Fig 6 from 1., Fig 5b from 3. and Fig 3b from 5. I await, with hopeful interest, the retraction from DNA Cell Biology, who were informed of these irregularities on 6 March 2008.
1. Yideng Jiang, Zhihong L, Jiantuan X, Jun C, Guizhong L, Shuren Wang. Homocysteine-mediated PPARalpha,gamma DNA methylation and its potential pathogenic mechanism in monocytes. DNA Cell Biol. 2008;27(3):143-50.
2. Jiang Yideng, Jiang J, Xiong J, Cao J, Li N, Li G, Wang Shuren. Homocysteine-induced extracellular superoxide dismutase and its epigenetic mechanisms in monocytes. J Exp Biol. 2008;211(Pt 6):911-20. 已被撤稿
3. Jiang Yideng, Sun T, Xiong J, Cao J, Li G, Wang Shuren. Hyperhomocysteinemia-mediated DNA hypomethylation and its potential epigenetic role in rats. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2007;39(9):657-67.
4. Yi-Deng Jiang, Tao S, Hui-Ping Z, Jian-Tuan X, Jun C, Gui-Zhong L, Shu-Ren Wang. Folate and ApoE DNA methylation induced by homocysteine in human monocytes. DNA Cell Biol. 2007;26(10):737-44. 待 撤稿
5. Yideng Jiang, Jianzhong Z, Ying H, Juan S, Jinge Z, Shenglan W, Xiaoqun H, Shuren Wang. Homocysteine-mediated expression of SAHH, DNMTs, MBD2, and DNA hypomethylation potential pathogenic mechanism in VSMCs. DNA Cell Biol. 2007;26(8):603-11.
6. Jiang Yideng, Zhang J, Xiong J, Cao J, Li G, Wang Shuren. Ligands of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor inhibit homocysteine-induced DNA methylation of inducible nitric oxide synthase gene. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2007;39(5):366-76.
Return to Top
Re-used Blots and Figures
by ERIK MARONDE
[Comment posted 2008-11-20 15:22:07]
As a reviewer I made a similar experience with a manuscript from a mostly Chinese affiliated author group. Due to serious concerns on the correctness of the description of the experiments and the obviously reused figures (2 of 5) from an already published paper I rejected the manuscript and corresponded my reasons to the editor. Some weeks later I received the unchanged manuscript to review for another journal and rejected it again once more reporting my reasons. Finally I saw the manuscript published, mostly unchanged. Later I had a similar experience but before I sent my review the editor decided to reject the manuscript due to serious ethical concerns and suspected fraud. I think beside the obvious responsibility of the authors for such scandalous misconduct, reviewers and editors overseeing such obvious attempts to betray the scientific community have to be blamed too. Proper peer review needs time!
(XYS20171121)This site is supported by ebookdiy.com.