The Investigation that Proved Rudolph Guilty<\/h3>\n
In July through a press release, the Leibniz Association announced its intention to refill Prof. Rudolph\u2019s position after learning about his scientific misconduct.<\/p>\n
The Foundation found Rudolph<\/a> culpable on 14th of December. It noted that three of Rudolph\u2019s \u00a0studies it had funded were questionable. Although the Foundation remains private about its wordings, it cited misinterpretation in the three German Research Foundation funded papers. The Foundation has since given him a written reprimand and slammed him with a 2-year ban on the right to request for funding.<\/p>\n However, the Foundation noted that the three publications had nothing to do with falsification of data. It also emphasized that the reprimand did not affect the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize it awarded to Rudolph for his ground-breaking research in 2009. This is because the three papers in question appeared after 2009. Some of Prof. Rudolph\u2019s papers appear simultaneously on the EMBO journal, PubPeer<\/em>, and other journals. Collectively, his 11 articles have 522 citations.<\/p>\n Rudolph and co-researchers issued the errata as recommended by the Leibniz Association Executive Board targeting the three German Research Foundation funded studies. One paper, published in the Cell<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>had incorrect images due to errors in data collection. The second corrected paper<\/a>, published in The EMBO Journal<\/em>, also had errors in the images and their labelling. The last paper is the one published<\/a> on 18th September 2014 in Nature<\/em>.\u00a0 The paper has not received any errata or reprints. In the two corrected papers, Prof. Rudolph and the team have noted that the magnitude of errors in the publications did not in any way affect the conclusion of the three studies. Collectively, the three studies had 201 citations.<\/p>\n Based on his responsibility and position<\/a> as the last author, Rudolph accepted the German Research Foundation decision. However, he regretted that he could not notice the errors in the data in the three Foundation funded projects. As a person of his stature, he admitted he did a disservice to his responsibility. He welcomed the Foundations verdict and took it as a challenge.<\/p>\n Rudolph stated that the Commission had not provided any evidence of gross scientific misconduct such as fabrication or manipulation of data. However, he pointed out that he will examine the publication and correct any errors therein. He also promised to take the initiative to prevent such anomalies in future.\u00a0 Meanwhile, he stepped aside as the FLI Director\u00a0and resumed his duties as a full-time scientist.<\/p>\n Earlier in the year, another such event occurred when marine biologist Oona L\u00f6nnstedt and limnologist Peter Ekl\u00f6v<\/a> were found guilty of scientific misconduct. They published a paper in Nature<\/em> that claimed that microplastic elements had an adverse effect on juvenile fish on an island in the Baltic Sea. Unfortunately, L\u00f6nnstedt falsified data and her supervisor, Ekl\u00f6v, failed to check the data. Some researchers questioned the non-disclosure of the data and the details of L\u00f6nnstedt\u2019s experiments. The paper thankfully went to Sweden\u2019s Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) for review, letting out their scientific misconduct.<\/p>\n CEPN found both scientists guilty of scientific misconduct and declared their results on 7th of December. L\u00f6nnstedt and Ekl\u00f6v violated several of the essential ethical rules in research<\/a> and upended the entire scientific process. Seven researchers, including Fredrik Jutfelt from Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Josefin Sundin from Uppsala University denounced L\u00f6nnstedt and Ekl\u00f6v\u2019s data in a scientific paper of their own. They accused L\u00f6nnstedt of not performing the experiments she claimed she had. Timothy Clark, another researcher and ecologist at the Deakin University in Australia, also questioned the validity of L\u00f6nnstedt\u2019s results. The scientists were relieved at the final verdict of CEPN, which proved\u00a0L\u00f6nnstedt’s scientific misconduct.<\/p>\n When asked about the board\u2019s investigations and review,<\/a>\u00a0 Ekl\u00f6v, one of the authors found guilty of scientific misconduct, expressed his disappointment on L\u00f6nnstedt<\/a>. He made a statement\u00a0 in Science<\/em>,\u00a0 where he mentioned being\u00a0shocked to find that his colleague actually did fabricate data, which was a very serious offence. No response could be recorded on the end of L\u00f6nnstedt regarding the board\u2019s verdict. Science<\/em> retracted L\u00f6nnstedt and Ekl\u00f6v\u2019s paper in April 2017 when the authors requested it.<\/p>\nThe Errata Issued by Rudolph<\/h3>\n
Rudolph’s Reaction to the Verdict<\/h3>\n
Swedish Scientists Commit Scientific Fraud<\/h2>\n
Discovering L\u00f6nnstedt and Ekl\u00f6v\u2019s Scientific Misconduct<\/h3>\n
Response of the Accused<\/h3>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"