Instances of Scientific Misconduct

Yoshihiro Sato

Yoshihiro Sato is infamous for receiving 96 retractions due to scientific misconduct. Yoshihiro Sato, a man who studied bone health, diseases, and treatments received retractions for general misconduct, falsification/fabrication of data and results, false/forged authorship, concerns about results and findings, duplications of articles, and unreliable images, data, and findings. Some of his infamous retracted papers include, “Bone quality and vitamin K@ in type 2 diabetes: Review of preclinical and clinical studies,” “Recurrence of spontaneous intracranial hypotension with subdural hematomas,” and “Decreased bone mass and increased bone turnover with valproate therapy in adults with epilepsy.” For more information on bone health research and misconduct, check out information on our site on Jun Iwamoto who worked alongside Sato and on Bone Health Studies.

An influential osteoporosis study is “likely fraudulent” — but not retracted (Retraction Watch, July 2, 2020)

COVID-19 puts spotlight on science — but scientists often lie (The Washington Times, May 9, 2020)

False Notes (New Zealand Geographic, February 2019)

How a Data Detective Exposed Suspicious Medical Trials (Scientific American, August 6, 2019)

Journal expresses a great deal of concern over deceased author’s work (Retraction Watch, August 5, 2019)

Kiwi academics help expose scientific fraud around vitamins (NewstalkZB, August 30, 2018)

Lies, Mistakes & More: These Scientific Papers Got Nixed in 2017 (Live Science, December 27, 2017)

Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him (Science Magazine, August 17, 2018)

Slow but steady: Anesthesiology researcher with more than 100 retractions will earn two more (Retraction Watch, June 4, 2020)


The Sato Scandal (Simanaitis Says, 2018)

There’s a way to spot data fakery. All journals should be using it (STAT, November 11, 2016)

University investigation finds misconduct by bone researcher with 23 retractions (Retraction Watch, December 6, 2017)

‘We badly need to change processes’: How ‘slow, opaque and inconsistent’ journals’ responses to misconduct can be (Retraction Watch, November 29, 2019)

What is Research Misconduct? Part 3: Fabrication (Science Integrity Digest, May 29, 2019)

What universities can learn from one of science’s biggest frauds (Nature, June 18, 2019)