1. Data deposition as a measure to prevent and to detect scientific misconduct CERN workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication (OAI6) Geneva, June 17 – 19, 2009 Alexander Lerchl School of Engineering and Science Jacobs University Bremen a.lerchl@jacobs-university.de

2. The REFLEX Project Funded by the European Commission 2000 – 2004, ~ 3 M€ budget 12 research groups from 7 European countries Coordinator: Franz Adlkofer, Munich (Verum Foundation) 8 Publications from Austria (Medical University Vienna)

3. The First Case: Diem et al., 2005

4. Huge Effects on DNA Molecules and Extremely Low Standard Deviations

5. A Letter-to-the-Editor, Vijayalaxmi et al., 2006

6. ...

7. The Reply: Rüdiger et al., 2006

8. Original data! n = 2 for all means!

9. Last digit preference! Out of 48 last digits: 2: 14 times 5: 2 times p<0.001

10. Variations lower than theoretical limits!

11. 24 average values each: n=2 Coefficients of variation always lower than 5%. Accuracy of the method ~ 25%!

12. What did Mutation Research do? Nothing.

13. Online February 2008 The Second Case: Schwarz et al., 2008

14. Again: Huge Effects and Negligible Standard Deviations

15. Coefficients of Variation Sham exposed: 3.9% Negative controls: 4.1% Exposed: 2.6% (at 25% variations of the SAR values!!) Positive controls: 1.2%

16. Please keep in mind: n=3!

17. Two Fortunate Coincidences 1) The discovery of Christian Wolf 2) The discovery of a student

18. The Discovery of Wolf: How to Unblind the Exposure System

19. The Discovery of the Student: Hidden Data The student: „Just do a right-click on the graph, and open the Excel sheet. The original data are then visible“. So I did....

20. n = 12, and not n = 3 ! So, n = 12, and not n = 3!

21. Calculated “Raw“ Data

22. What did Int Arch Occup Health do? (Almost) Nothing.

23. Reactions of the Medical University Vienna In three press releases, the University called the data “fabricated“ They informed the journals accordingly

24. Outlook None of the papers in question (altogether eight) has been retracted (so far). For example:

25. Outlook COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) is currently considering a complaint against the journals [Mutation Research and IAEOH] to investigate whether they followed COPE's recommended procedures.

26. Conclusions These cases highlight the need for deposition of original data when a manuscript is submitted in order to make investigations possible if suspicions about the scientific integrity of submitted or published articles arise. This is of particular importance for papers dealing with topics of potential public concerns.

27. Thank you for Your Attention! Questions?