{"id":27207,"date":"2012-03-13T16:13:29","date_gmt":"2012-03-13T20:13:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?post_type=news&p=27207"},"modified":"2012-03-13T16:14:12","modified_gmt":"2012-03-13T20:14:12","slug":"prominent-japanese-cardiologist-accused-of-scientific-misconduct","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2012\/03\/13\/prominent-japanese-cardiologist-accused-of-scientific-misconduct\/","title":{"rendered":"Prominent Japanese Cardiologist Accused of Scientific Misconduct"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following accusations by independent bloggers in Japan and Germany, the American Heart Association (AHA) has issued an\u00a0Expression of Concern<\/a>\u00a0about five papers published in AHA journals co-authored by\u00a0Hiroaki Matsubara<\/a>, a prominent cardiologist and researcher at Kyoto Prefectural University in Japan.\u00a0In addition to his many papers exploring the basic science of the renin-angiotensin system, Matsubara was the chief investigator of\u00a0the KYOTO HEART Study<\/a>, a randomized, open-label study examining the add-on effect of valsartan to conventional therapy in high-risk hypertension.<\/p>\n

Questions about Matsubara\u2019s work were initially raised last year on a Japanese blog and then pursued in three English language posts (here<\/a>,\u00a0here,<\/a> and\u00a0here<\/a>) on a German site, the\u00a0Abnormal Science Blog.\u00a0<\/em>Abnormal Science<\/em>\u00a0reported evidence of serious scientific misconduct in 12 papers in which Matsubara was the only common co-author. The AHA posted its\u00a0Expression of Concern<\/a>\u00a0on Monday, which was subsequently reported by\u00a0Retraction Watch<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The three posts on Abnormal\u00a0Science\u00a0<\/em>demonstrate repeated examples of \u00a0image manipulation and copying, as well as self-plagiarism. The non-AHA journals cited by\u00a0Abnormal Science\u00a0<\/em>include\u00a0Kidney International<\/em>,\u00a0Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications<\/em>, and\u00a0Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology<\/em>. At least one paper<\/a>, in\u00a0Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry,\u00a0<\/em>has been \u00a0retracted “due to a mistake of duplicating the publication of original data” that already had appeared in Circulation Research<\/em>. Here is how\u00a0Abnormal Science<\/em>\u00a0summarized its initial findings\u00a0<\/em>in several of the papers:<\/p>\n

It is apparent that band images from \u2018real\u2019 blots may have been digitally reassembled into new blot images pretending to be derived from distinct experimental settings. Since ‘reconfigured blots’ have been densimetrically scanned and the results illustrated in tables and figures, we are presumably confronted with a case of severe data fabrication.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These are the five papers cited by the AHA, including the number of citations as reported by\u00a0Retraction Watch:<\/em><\/p>\n