Cardiology Journal Flags Papers Cited Hundreds of Times

A European cardiology journal has issued expressions of disaster for seven broadly-cited papers dating back to 2009 after a reader flagged suspicious shots within the articles.

Even though the solid of characters changes, the senior author on all seven papers is Chao-Ke Tang, of the First Affiliated Health center of the University of South China, in Hengyang, Hunan. Up to now, now not lower than 15 of Tang’s papers recognize near below scrutiny on PubPeer. Two months within the past, as an instance, Elisabeth Bik posted about “unexpected similarities” in a pair of figures in a 2013 paper by Tang and colleagues that looked in PLoS ONE .

Nonetheless Sander Kersten, the chair of Nutrition, Metabolism and Genomics and Division of Human Nutrition and Well being at Wageningen University in The Netherlands, talked about he believes that the researcher’s output for roughly the past decade is unreliable.

Kersten talked about his concerns about Tang date back to 2014, when he reviewed — negatively — a manuscript for Atherosclerosis, an Elsevier title, from the researcher:

I had indicated to the editor when reviewing the paper that I did now not belief the results and suspected manipulation. As an illustration, the LPL mRNA, protein and exercise levels were too identical with very little error bars. It looked too correct to be correct. According to my disaster the paper became once rejected as a result of moral concerns. The paper ended up being published in
Biochimie.

A pair months later I again got a review question from
Atherosclerosis
for a various paper by the identical analysis team. I examined the paper and indicated that I had the identical unease as with the other paper and would purchase to excuse myself from reviewing the paper. I don’t recognize any document of the resolution letter of
Atherosclerosis
(on story of I became once now not formally a reviewer) nonetheless they recognize to recognize rejected the paper as it looked a whereas later in
PLoS ONE.

Kersten suggested us that after noticing that diverse Tang’s articles eager work on microRNAs, a authorized topic of paper mills, he started taking a set extra intently at them:

After I inspected some of the most papers I purchased uneasy with diverse the bars graphs which extra stimulated my suspicion. After that I contacted Elisabeth Bik, who had contacted me many years within the past to alert me about one among our papers being plagiarized. I expressed my concerns to her about this author and tried to search out affirmation from her that something became once amiss. She went by 60 papers of this author and spotted some manipulations which she posted on Pubpeer. She also indicated that there were about a papers that resembled paper mill papers nonetheless talked about it became once laborious to present this. The ones she posted on Pubpeer were seemingly now not from paper mills, she talked about.

Tang did come what may respond to an yell for comment from Retraction Think about.

The seven flagged papers in Atherosclerosis are the most for Tang’s community in a single journal. Here is a consultant leer, for a 2016 article titled “Apolipoprotein A-1 binding protein promotes macrophage cholesterol efflux by facilitating apolipoprotein A-1 binding to ABCA1 and combating ABCA1 degradation:”

The Editors of Atherosclerosis are issuing an expression of disaster to alert readers that credible concerns were raised in terms of the quality of some data within the article above. We have communicated with the University of South China (Hengyang, Hunan) and requested an self sustaining evaluation of the solutions published listed right here. We are able to retract acceptable editorial motion after the conclusion of this investigation.

The article has been cited 43 events, in accordance to Clarivate Analytics’ Internet of Science, and altogether six of the seven papers were cited some 350 events.

The six other EoCs beget the following articles: