A recent investigation by the University of Manchester has uncovered instances of poor research practices amounting to research misconduct by paleontologist Robert DePalma, renowned for his study on the asteroid impact that led to the extinction of dinosaurs. While the university report found no evidence of data fabrication, it highlighted several shortcomings in DePalma's research methodologies.
DePalma, whose research claimed that the asteroid impact occurred in springtime, faced accusations of fraud from fellow paleontologists Melanie During and her adviser Per Ahlberg. The university's investigation acknowledged DePalma's errors in "record-keeping and data presentation" but cleared him of fabricating data. The findings were deemed a form of "negligent misconduct," prompting DePalma to express a commitment to self-improvement and positive adjustment.
Notably, the investigation did not dispute the conclusion of DePalma's paper, asserting that the asteroid hit 66 million years ago in springtime. However, concerns were raised about the reliability of data presented in the paper, prompting discussions about potential retractions by Scientific Reports, the publication platform.
Melanie During, who filed the fraud complaint, considers the acknowledgment of poor research practices a significant victory. She advocates for the retraction of DePalma's paper, arguing that non-scientific information has been presented as scientific, posing potential consequences for the academic community.
DePalma defended himself, emphasizing the university's clearance of data fabrication charges and attributing the identified issues to a need for improvement. Springer Nature Group, the publisher of Scientific Reports, is reportedly evaluating its next steps, and an editor's note on the paper highlights the current uncertainty regarding data reliability.
The dispute revolves around isotopic data underlying DePalma's 2021 paper, with allegations of irregularities in graphs and concerns about data transparency. The university's investigation revealed that DePalma manually drew points on graphs from an interim data sheet provided by his co-author Curtis McKinney, who has since passed away. The irregularities were attributed to genuine errors resulting from the lack of raw data due to McKinney's death.
While the report faults DePalma for poor research practice and lack of transparency, it absolves other co-authors who were not supervising the isotope work. Isotope experts express reservations about the study, citing irregular reporting and implausible data. The unresolved issues prompt calls for further clarification and resolution within the scientific community.
