Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

A Springer Nature journal has retracted a 2017 paper on induced brain injuries in piglets over questions about the data – making us wonder if the animals weren’t essentially tortured (if the experiments truly took place) as part of someone’s misconduct.  

Meanwhile, Springer Nature seems to have wiped its hands clean of the matter involving a paper from the lab of William Armstead, a now-retired pharmacy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who is up to five retractions. The publisher agreed to refer any questions about the case to the main institution involved, a private university, meaning that readers and the public have little if any recourse to learn the truth unless it releases a report on the matter – which rarely happens. 

No one at Penn has responded to repeated requests for comment from us. And even if they release a report, as we’ve written, the record of the misconduct might leave much to be desired. 

The article, “Sex and age differences in phenylephrine mechanisms and outcomes after piglet brain injury,” was funded by the  NIH and has been cited nine times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. In the work, which appeared in Pediatric Research, Armstead and his colleagues reportedly administered “fluid percussion brain injuries” to 30 young pigs to see how the intervention damaged the organ. 

As this 2011 paper explains: 

The fluid percussion device produces an injury through a craniectomy by applying a brief fluid pressure pulse on to the intact dura. The pulse is created by a pendulum striking the piston of a reservoir of fluid. The percussion produces brief displacement and deformation of neural tissue.

Subjecting baby pigs to brain damage (before killing them) may have some justification in research, if subjected to the right oversight. Having to scrap the project because someone decided that fabricating the data was a good idea seems far less justifiable.

However, the retraction notice is vague about the problems with the paper: 

The author has retracted this article. After publication it was discovered that the data in the article could not be substantiated by the source data. John Riley, Bill Armstead, Victor Curvello, Monica S. Vavilala agree to this retraction. Hugh Hekierski has not responded to any correspondence from the editor about this retraction.

Opacity seems to be the operating principle here. 

We reached out to Lauren Overbey, managing editor of the journal, for more information about the retraction. Overbey responded with the following message:

We received all information about this retraction from an author and their institution. We were directed that if further detail on the process or findings is required, the request should be addressed to Glen Gaulton, PhD, Professor and Vice Dean at the Perelman School of Medicine.

Overbey didn’t respond to our question about who “directed” the journal to refer inquiries to the university – Penn, Springer Nature? But Alice Kay, a spokesperson for the publisher, told us that the request came from the university:

We were advised by the author’s institution that Prof Gaulton at the University of Pennsylvania has the responsibility for leading all such research integrity investigations, and so is best placed to provide further details on the case in this instance.

Gaulton – like other Penn officials we have contacted over the course of reporting on this story for months – and Armstead have not replied to requests for comment.  Neither has Vavilala, an anesthesiologist at the University of Washington who directs the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center and whose name appears with Armstead’s on at least 30 publications.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

The line “Opacity seems to be the operating principle” is incorrectly included in the block quote, whereas I presume it’s yours.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website per the terms of our privacy policy: https://retractionwatch.com/privacy-policy/ *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.