The University of NSW is set to be investigated over its handling of an alleged case of research misconduct involving scientists from its Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing.

The ABC reported earlier this week (link) that the Australian Research Integrity Committee will review the processes of the Sydney-based university, which has taken more than two years and counting to conduct its preliminary assessment.

The allegations, which arose in September 2021 on a website called PubPeer, include claims that some images included in the researchers’ papers had signs of duplication, such as being stretched, flipped or used to represent different results.

A number of papers co-authored by researchers from UNSW’s CHeBA and Macquarie University were questioned on the website, which enables anonymous discussion of scientific research, and brought to the attention of the universities.

In its article, the ABC said the research integrity committee would focus on “whether the time taken [by UNSW] to complete the preliminary assessment [of the allegations], considering all circumstances, could prejudice the findings or fairness of this assessment, or impose hardship on relevant persons involved”.

It said nine of the papers flagged for investigation were led by Dr Nady Braidy, a senior research fellow who leads CHeBA’s Brain and Ageing Lab.

Dr Braidy did not respond when contacted for comment by the limbic.

Twelve articles with alleged anomalies featured Professor Gilles J. Guillemin, a neuroscientist who previously worked at Macquarie University, as co-author. Two of his co-authored papers, one of which was led by Dr Braidy, have been retracted.

Professor Guillemin agreed with the retractions.

He told the limbic he had fully complied with Macquarie University and UNSW’s investigations and denied any wrongdoing regarding the alleged image anomalies.

He could not comment further.

Corrective actions

Macquarie University has since completed its own preliminary assessment.

“The outcome has been conveyed to various involved parties, publishers, or funding bodies where appropriate,” a university spokesperson told the limbic.

“Several allegations were dismissed but in other instances, corrective actions were developed and are being implemented. These actions include author or institutional requests to journals for corrigenda or retractions, and institutional referrals for investigation.

“The empirical research that is the subject of these ongoing actions was not conducted at Macquarie University but involves multiple parties across various jurisdictions, making this a particularly complex matter to manage.”

Professor Perminder Sachdev, co-founder of CHeBA and a co-author on eight papers that were flagged on PubPeer, told the ABC his role with the papers had been “to comment on and contribute to the clinical implications of the work”.

Professor Sachdev said “some of the issues have been identified as mistakes by junior investigators that have been corrected”. One of his co-authored papers received a correction but this was not related to allegations of image manipulation.

The limbic contacted UNSW for comment but is yet to receive a response.

An Australian Research Council spokesperson told the limbic: “Noting the importance of maintaining procedural fairness and protecting the privacy of individuals involved, the Australian Research Council does not comment on investigations being undertaken by the Australian Research Integrity Committee.”

Last month, the limbic reported on calls for a regulator to be established to police research misconduct, following a new report by the Australia Institute that argued that the current self-regulation model was failing as it lacked oversight.

“An independent research integrity body will ensure public confidence and international trust in the Australian research sector,” said the report, published in November [link here].

The think tank noted the Australian Academy of Science had begun making steps towards the establishment of a body, perhaps to be called Research Integrity Australia (RIA), that would oversee research misconduct investigations in Australia.

However, details on the model being proposed had not yet been made available to the public.

“Over 500 Australian academic papers have been retracted over the past 20 years. Research misconduct has consequences, including risks to patient health, misappropriation of research funding, and the obstruction of progress on other research.”

It comes just weeks after a former head of the NHMRC, Professor Warwick Anderson, went public (link) to call for mandatory registration of medical researchers with an AHPRA-style regulator to stamp out the sector’s “genuine and substantial” problem with fraud.