That would be Yoshihiro Sato, whose misdeeds in this matter have prompted the retraction of over 60 studies so far. A fellow bone health researcher gave serious attention to the question:
The analysis is one of just a few to look closely at research-misconduct investigations, and the first to use a systematic approach to rate them, says C. K. Gunsalus, a specialist in research integrity at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, who was not part of the analysis. Too many research-misconduct investigations turn out to be inadequate or flawed, says Gunsalus, who had a hand in creating a 26-point checklist2 that university officials can use to guide probes into research misconduct, which Grey’s team used to rate the investigations.
The checklist questions an investigation’s scope, reliability and impact — for instance, whether the investigating committee included external members and whether evidence could have been tampered with. The team independently assessed each investigation report using the checklist; one report had addressed none of the points adequately and two others properly addressed only two or three points. “Overall, each report was considered unacceptable,” say Grey and colleagues.Holly Else, “What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds” at Nature
See also: Most chemistry papers are retracted for serious, not trivial, problems
A study of the causes of science skepticism sails right by the most obvious cause of skepticism: Repeated untrustworthiness
Follow UD News at Twitter!