Comments on: Shikeagi Kato, who resigned post in March, retracts Nature paper

By: YY

YY — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:49:03 +0000

Thank you, seems like I have been imaging more. It seems like Cell and Science are retracting more… Anyway, something must be fatally wrong. I see no correlation between real impact of the paper and the “impact factor”. Often case, fancy journals are often buying “cheap solution” (clear question clear answer, —but sometimes it’s clear because it is fabricated to make sense). Well, I have to constantly fight against the urge to quit science.

By: ivanoransky

ivanoransky — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:03:00 +0000

Several people have. Ferric Fang and Arturo Casadevall created a Retraction Index, which corrects for how many papers journals publish: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-retraction-index/

And here are the raw numbers: http://pmretract.heroku.com/journals

By: YY

YY — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:57:29 +0000

I wish somebody does statistics on which journal retracts most. That’s authors fault, but the journal should be more careful. Is it my imagination that Nature papers are too often retracted, even comparing to Science or Cell?

By: yuuth

yuuth — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:38:36 +0000

Mi-Sun Kim, Korean 1st Author of the retracted paper in Nature, has been working in Baylor College of Medicine (Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Metabolism) as a postdoctoral associate.
http://bric.postech.ac.kr/hanbitsa/author_cvpop.php?id=12624&Board=hbs_treatise&ttype=0&idauthorid=5746

By: chirality

chirality — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:58:11 +0000

The “our results still stand” bit is from the earlier correction, not the final retraction. But I agree that such comments should not be allowed.

By: Marco

Marco — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:55:48 +0000

That statement was made in the *corrigendum*. The paper was retracted later.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:40:32 +0000

This issue of……

“Our results and conclusions are not affected by these errors, but we apologise for the careless mistakes made”

….needs to be dealt with. There is no way authors who admit to “errors” in data presentation should EVER be allowed to make this statement. Aside from the questions over the original paper, the manuscript has been retracted and, therefore, it officially no longer exists. How can the results/conclusions still stand if the paper is gone? No paper = no data = no conclusions. It’s pathetic.

By: Ressci Integrity

Ressci Integrity — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:48:50 +0000

agreed Chirality. but empty lanes in the western blot attract some sort of doubts…but not for favourable reviewers.

By: chirality

chirality — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:38:19 +0000

Reviewers do not necessarily look for fraud as they usually take all data in the manuscript at face value. The whistle-blower who uncovered Kato’s fraud has been very clever in this regard.

By: Ressci Integrity

Ressci Integrity — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:14:57 +0000

Is this an (bad) example of high impact journals’ review system? How did it pass through the extensive review process? It would be nice if the journals reveal the reviewers of such papers (of course after retraction). I know many of you don’t like this idea. Sorry if I hurt anyone.