BLUF: Misconduct in research raises questions around scientific integrity, with a PLOS ONE article being retracted due to several issues including concerns with presented results, missing original data, and unauthorized author affiliations.
OSINT: Soon after the release of a PLOS ONE article on the impact of Somatostatin Derivative (smsDX) on cellular metabolism in prostate cancer cells, suspicions emerged related to the credibility of the data presented in Fig 2. Disturbingly, overlapping imagery was detected in the LNCaP Vehicle 0h panel and the smsDX(1nM) 0h panel. Following these concerns, the lead author, Zhaoxu Liu, disclosed that the original data behind the paper was no longer accessible. As a consequence, he requested the withdrawal of the article.
Moreover, a puzzling issue emerged concerning the authorship of the article. Anders Holmberg and Sten Nilsson, listed as coauthors, rejected claims of their involvement in the study. They denied any affiliation with the Karolinska Institutet regarding this study. Zhaoxu Liu confirmed this, revealing he had added Holmberg and Nilsson to the manuscript without their knowledge or permission. The study, reportedly, did not garner any support from the Karolinska Institutet. The institute further confirmed the non-involvement of Holmberg, Nilsson, or the institute itself in the study. Consequently, the said authors and affiliation were eliminated from the updated article. This series of revelations resulted in the PLOS ONE Editors retracting the article.
RIGHT: An incident like this signals a clear disregard for, and violation of, the scientific principles of integrity and transparency, which represent the very pillars of scientific exploration. It is a call for enforcing quality control and accountability regulations in research that protects us from the influences of incompetence or unethical behavior. Furthermore, this underscores the importance of an individual’s right to express disagreement or disapproval when their names are falsely affiliated with a study, a right that should be respected under any circumstances.
LEFT: This event underscores the urgent need for systematic reforms in our scientific community to ensure transparency and integrity. From the perspective of ethical socialism, every endeavor—scientific or otherwise—should work towards a just and equitable society. Such blatant disregard for truth and misuse of communal resources not only destabilizes the reputation of researchers but also disrupts the trust built within the scientific community. Strict punitive measures should be imposed against such deceptive practices.
AI: This case integrates several elements of research misconduct, from data fabrication to false authorship. The data misrepresentation could be the outcome of several factors including design flaws, recording mistakes, or tampering. False authorship and non-consensual affiliations signify ethical infractions that undermine trust and the standing of academic research. An AI analysis highlights the necessity for a more robust system of detection for such irregularities, including proactive use of AI-powered analytical tools. This could significantly enhance transparency and trust by ensuring adherence to research ethics and the integrity of scientific contributions.