Martin Gleave, a prominent Canadian urologist and professor at the University of British Columbia, is under scrutiny following allegations of data duplication in at least 30 of his research papers. Anonymous comments on PubPeer flagged concerns regarding reused or altered images, with similarities detected across multiple studies using the ImageTwin software.
Key Developments:
- Flagged Papers: Allegations involve 30 publications co-authored by Gleave, including papers in high-impact journals such as Nature Communications and Oncogene. Concerns range from duplication within individual papers to possible reuse of tumor specimens across studies.
- Editorial Actions: The British Journal of Cancer issued an editorial expression of concern for a 2012 paper, citing issues with manipulated Western blot images. Other journals, including Springer Nature and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), are reviewing flagged articles.
- Co-Author Involvement: Several papers originate from the lab of frequent co-author Xuesen Dong, who attributed errors to inadvertent mistakes by students and technical challenges in preparing composite figures. Dong emphasized that the mistakes did not affect study conclusions.
Background and Implications:
Gleave, an Order of Canada appointee and a co-founder of OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals, has been a leading figure in prostate cancer research, securing over $120 million in funding. These allegations raise concerns about research integrity and the processes behind scientific publications.
While Gleave stated that his team is assessing the issues internally, it may take months to fully address the allegations. Journals have yet to take decisive actions, though corrections and retractions are anticipated.
What’s Next?
As the investigation unfolds, publishers, including Springer Nature and AACR, are committed to upholding ethical standards and will act upon verified findings. This case highlights the need for rigorous oversight in scholarly publishing and the risks of overlooked errors in high-profile research.
Original Story Link: Retraction Watch