“A flooding accident:” Engineer has seven papers retracted at once

A chemical engineer in China who claims his supporting data were wiped out in a flood has notched his ninth retraction, seven from a single journal, for suspicious images and related issues. 

The work of Dong Ge Tong, of Chengdu University of Technology, had come under scrutiny in PubPeer, and several of his articles received expressions of concern before ultimately falling to retraction.

Last week, the Journal of Materials Chemistry A pulled seven papers on which Tong was an author. Here’s the notice for one of those articles, “Hollow amorphous NaFePO4 nanospheres as a high-capacity and high-rate cathode for sodium-ion batteries,” first published in 2015: 

The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Journal of Materials Chemistry A article, with the agreement of the authors, due to concerns with the reliability of the electron microscope (EM) and XRD images in the published article.

The STEM images in Fig. 1a, S1, S6a, S9a–d and S14a, b contain repetitions of distinct shapes or patterns within the images. There are discrepancies in the background of Fig. S3 suggesting that the STEM image may have been altered inappropriately. Repeating patterns can be observed in the baselines of the XRD spectra in Fig 2a, S10d and S15a.

The authors informed us that the characterisation was completed by a third party company and they used the images “without any editing or modification”. The authors repeated the experiments and requested to provide replacement data for Fig. 1a, 2a, S1, S3, S6a, S9a–d, S10d, S14a, b and S15a. The new figures were reviewed by an independent expert. The authors believe that the scientific content and conclusions of the related studies presented by the pictures in the published paper can be reproduced. However, the independent expert still questions the reliability of the published images. The authors informed us that due to a flooding accident in the laboratory, the original data of the published EM images were destroyed. In addition, the third party company only saved the test data for one month. Due to the large number of images, it is not possible to replace the published images with the new figures. To avoid the possibility of publishing unreliable EM images, the authors agree to retract this paper to protect the rigor of the scientific record.

This retraction supersedes the information provided in the expression of concern related to this article.

Signed: Dr Dong Ge Tong (on behalf of the authors).

Date: 1st August 2019.

Retraction endorsed by Sam Keltie, Executive Editor, Journal of Materials Chemistry A.

That statement is essentially the same as one from Catalysis Science & Technology, which retracted a 2015 article by Tong and colleagues, “Monodisperse CuB₂₃ nanoparticles grown on graphene as highly efficient catalysts for unactivated alkyl halide Heck coupling and levulinic acid hydrogenation.” The lengthy notice declares that Tong’s group used a “third party company” to produce the images in the paper, and gets messier from there: 

The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Catalysis Science & Technology article, with the agreement of the authors, due to concerns with the reliability of the electron microscope (EM) and XRD images in the published article.

Two identical sections of particles, which have been rotated, can be observed in the STEM image in Fig. 1a.

The STEM images in Fig. S3a and S3b share a common motif of particles. A number of repeating sections of particles can also be observed in Fig. S3b.

The STEM image in Fig. S24b represents a magnified version of the same image presented in Fig. S1b.

The STEM image in Fig. S25a consists of two identical sections that have been rotated.

The XRD spectra in Fig. S22a–c are identical in the 2–37 and 72–80 degree ranges. Spectra b and c are also identical in the 46–72 degree range and contain a repeating pattern in the baseline.

The authors informed us that the characterisation was completed by a third party company and they used the images “without any editing or modification”. The authors repeated the experiments and requested to provide replacement data for Fig. 1a, S1b, S3, S22, S24b and S25a. The new figures were reviewed by an independent expert. The authors believe that the scientific content and conclusions of the related studies presented by the pictures in the published paper can be reproduced. However, the independent expert still questions the reliability of the published images. The authors informed us that due to a flooding accident in the laboratory, the original data of the published EM images were destroyed. In addition, the third party company only saved the test data for one month. Due to the large number of images, it is not possible to replace the published images with the new figures. To avoid the possibility of publishing unreliable EM images, the authors agree to retract this paper to protect the rigor of the scientific record.

This retraction supersedes the information provided in the Expression of Concern related to this article.

Signed: Dr Dong Ge Tong (on behalf of the authors).

Date: 1st August 2019.

Retraction endorsed by Anna Simpson, Executive Editor, Catalysis Science & Technology.

The paper has been cited 28 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. 

Earlier this summer, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces issued an expression of concern for one of Tong’s papers, “Mesoporous face-centered-cubic In₄Ni alloy nanorices: superior catalysts for hydrazine dehydrogenation in aqueous solution,” published in 2016. According to the journal: 

As of July 16, 2019, the Editor issues an Expression of Concern to advise readers of potentially concerning data in this Article (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces2016, 8 (38), 25268–25278). Figure 1a, which is also in the Table of Contents graphic, is a TEM image that may have been inappropriately manipulated; however, the original data is unavailable to confirm potential alterations.

We emailed Tong for comment but have yet to hear back.

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, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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.