Instances of Scientific Misconduct | Jun Iwamoto

Jun Iwamoto

Jun Iwamoto is infamous for having around 74 retractions of studies/publications. Iwamoto worked alongside Yoshihiro Sato (also featured on this site), another bone-health specialist. Jun Iwamoto, originally a board member of the Osteoporosis Society of Japan, is known for having retractions due to duplications of data and articles, errors in text, general misconduct, false/forged authorship, and concerns about results and data. Much of his work was in orthopedics, cellular biology, toxicology, endocrinology, etc. Many of his retracted or rejected papers were in JAMA Internal Medicine, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, Neurology, and Trials. 

A shadow was cast on a bone researcher’s work. What are journals doing about his papers? (Retraction Watch, April 25, 2017)

Academic Misconduct, Misrepresentation and Gaming: A Reassessment (SSRN, November 19, 2018)

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

Assessing and Raising Concerns About Duplicate Publication, Authorship Transgressions and Data Errors in a Body of Preclinical Research (SpringerLink, October 31, 2019)

Caught Our Notice: No retraction for “likely fraudulent” study (Retraction Watch, March 6, 2018)

Check for publication integrity before misconduct (Nature, January 7, 2020)

Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review (Retraction Watch, April 18, 2017)

Inaccurate retraction notice for meta-analysis by Iwamoto et al (University of Aberdeen, August 9, 2018)

Journal expresses a great deal of concern over deceased author’s work (Retraction Watch, August 13, 2019)

Jun Iwamoto’s research while affiliated with Keio University and other places (ResearchGate, April 2020)

‘Probable Misconduct’ in Fracture Risk Trials in Stroke, PD (Medscape, November 18, 2016)

Scientific misconduct by ancestry/country (Clear Language, Clear Mind, October 6, 2019)

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