4 ms·
from the submission; 1- "The errors the authors corrected “do not alter the conclusions of the Article,” they wrote in the notice." 2- "the Blood paper contai
by rolph 2y ago
from the submission;
1- "The errors the authors corrected “do not alter the conclusions of the Article,” they wrote in the notice."
2- "the Blood paper contained falsified images, but Verfaillie was not responsible for the manipulations. Blood retracted the article in 2009 at the request of the authors. "
3- "The university found “no breach of research integrity in the publications investigated.” "
4- "The notice mentions two image duplications Bik wrote about on PubPeer. Because the authors could not retrieve the original images, it states:
the Editors no longer have confidence that the conclusion that multipotent adult progenitor cells (MAPCs) engraft in the bone marrow is supported.
Given the concerns above the Editors no longer have confidence in the reliability of the data reported in this article."
- newzisforsukas 2y ago> contained falsified images This is so common. Why aren't there more legal outcomes around this like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Poehlman
- b112 2y agoI think the grant application provided a strong case of benefit from the fraud, likely why it succeeded. (I agree... fraud is fraud, and should be handled with criminal law)