由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Biology版 - Retraction Watch上关于那片Nature作假的
相关主题
Another paper & structure retractedScience 消息两名中国博士后的关于基因治疗文章作假, Li Chen 和 Zhiyu Li
这个哈佛stem cell 图造假和当年肖恩的类似了linda buck 有点猛啊
The Top 10 Retractions of 2015(zz)《Nature》: 研究称美科学家更倾向于造假
国自然基金委对方舟子的实名举报有反应么?触目惊心啊
[合集] 中兴 cell paper retracted.这篇纽约时报文章值得一读:A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
Nature Reviews Genetics 论文由于剽窃一段论文被撤稿未经老板许可发文章,这回全是老中
another case of a Chinese guy's paper retracted...问个老鼠实验的问题
也说说Nature这期的retraction日本人造假
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: nature话题: retraction话题: results话题: fig话题: reln1
进入Biology版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
s****h
发帖数: 184
1
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/you-can-do-that
You can do that? A massive correction in Nature, but no retraction
This past April, Amparo Acker-Palmer and colleagues published a study in
Nature, “Ephrin Bs are essential components of the Reelin pathway to
regulate neuronal migration.” Within a day of its publication, Nature
readers were raising questions about many of its figures. They started like
this:
Andy Gu said:
Looks like Fig 1a, the two middle figures are actually the same with
little move from desired regions. I don’t trust their data now…..
After several such comments, Nature senior editor Noah Gray weighed in:
Many thanks to all who have pointed out potential irregularities in the
figures of this manuscript. The issue is currently under investigation by
Nature, with the full cooperation of the authors, and we will move quickly
to bring this issue to conclusion. Both editors and authors are committed to
ensuring that the scientific record is accurate and are thus working
diligently to restore confidence in the results. Thank you for your patience.
A few Retraction Watch readers have brought this exchange to our attention,
and suggested that a retraction was in order, so we’ve been keeping an eye
out. Nature has acted, but rather than a retraction, the journal has issued
a correction. It’s a whopper:
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice, including
mislabelling of images or choosing an image from the inappropriate genotype.
In all cases, choice of images was completely independent of the data
analysis and so none of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected.
We apologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex for four
different genotypes. In the process of choosing representative pictures that
reflect the results of our analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from
original pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a with new representative images
for the following genotypes: WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-
magnification picture for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels.
Original images for every genotype and additional examples are shown in the
Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for five
different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly cropped images from
original pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
provide below a corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–.
In the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells aberrantly
accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do not migrate to the upper
layers, resembling the Reeler (Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and
additional examples are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11 cells. We have
also included results from a new, reproduced experiment recently performed
with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same results.
In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’ should
instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methods summary section ‘
Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Cortical neurons from E14.5 were grown….’’
should instead read ‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.
There were mistakes in the supplementary online material, too:
Further errors in the Supplementary Information of the original Letter
are described and corrected in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
We thought this was quite an extensive collection of errors, so we wanted to
know why Nature thought a correction was a better way to deal with them
than a retraction. The journal responded (emphasis theirs):
Please see the definitions for corrigenda and retractions in the Nature
journals. In this case a corrigenda was appropriate since the finding in the
paper remains unchanged.
A Corrigendum is a notification of an important error made by the author
(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the
paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. All authors must
sign corrigenda submitted for publication. In cases where coauthors disagree
, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers and impose
the appropriate amendment, noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of
the published version.
A Retraction is a notification of invalid results. All coauthors must
sign a retraction specifying the error and stating briefly how the
conclusions are affected, and submit it for publication. In cases where
coauthors disagree, the editors will seek advice from independent peer-
reviewers and impose the type of amendment that seems most appropriate,
noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.
We were also curious about the new results presented in the Corrigendum:
We have also included results from a new, reproduced experiment recently
performed with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same
results.
We’ve seen claims like this before, in other journals, and at least one of
those journals said it hadn’t even looked at the new data. Here, at least
Nature is making it available. We wondered if Nature typically peer-review
statements made in corrections and retractions, and whether they’d peer-
reviewed this particular set of new results.
Nature would only sat that peer review is confidential, and that it would be
best if we spoke to the authors. We tried to do that, but the corresponding
author hasn’t responded to our requests for comment.
We’ll update with anything we find out.
g*********5
发帖数: 2533
2
someone could make some youtube about this paper? and we could post it
everywhere and marked this editor maybe got some profit from those authors..
.
1 (共1页)
进入Biology版参与讨论
相关主题
日本人造假[合集] 中兴 cell paper retracted.
谁能找出来去年nature上土耳其学生造假最后轻易过关的帖子?Nature Reviews Genetics 论文由于剽窃一段论文被撤稿
不如,我们来做个Nature文章造假大集锦?another case of a Chinese guy's paper retracted...
关于nature造假文章。也说说Nature这期的retraction
Another paper & structure retractedScience 消息两名中国博士后的关于基因治疗文章作假, Li Chen 和 Zhiyu Li
这个哈佛stem cell 图造假和当年肖恩的类似了linda buck 有点猛啊
The Top 10 Retractions of 2015(zz)《Nature》: 研究称美科学家更倾向于造假
国自然基金委对方舟子的实名举报有反应么?触目惊心啊
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: nature话题: retraction话题: results话题: fig话题: reln1