Comments for Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Fri, 24 May 2013 06:04:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by germanresearcher http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57531 Fri, 24 May 2013 06:04:58 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57531 Reuters about this case:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/23/science-clone-stem-cells-idUSL2N0E41D120130523

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by germanresearcher http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57529 Fri, 24 May 2013 05:53:27 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57529 Totally agree with your posting!

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by David Peterson http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57527 Fri, 24 May 2013 05:46:13 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57527 OK – the basic problem in this paper: if the same figure panel is shown within two different figures, with two different label tags, in addition to different cropping of the same picture in two figures, then this cannot be attributed to “it seems that there were some minor errors made by the authors when preparing the figures for initial submission”. Based on these so-called minor errors how one can trust that errors were not there during experimentation and data collection. And, as per ORI’s definitions and Cell’s document on instructions to authors on image manipulations and data presentation in figures, this case clearly and completely falls within the boundary of “RESEARCH MISCONDUCT”.

Regarding the peer-review process and the explanation from Cell Press – it is a very clear case of lack in rigorous review of this manuscript. However, it is not surprising because most of these big papers and breakthrough manuscripts are reviewed by the so-called experienced and famous senior scientists in the filed, who actually are symbiotic friends.

If Cells press is so eager to block the retraction of this paper they need to make a deal with the PI/group leader to share all the reagents and methods to a completely independent group (no senior established investigator please!) to reproduce the results, and let all the experimentation, data collection and analysis be done with continuous videotaping. If the results are reproduced (as published), then they should not retract this paper, as well as publish the repeat work. This would be a powerful tool to validate this breakthrough research.

iloveresearch – I hope you understand the seriousness of this case now.

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by germanresearcher http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57525 Fri, 24 May 2013 05:18:16 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57525 Yes, this case is another case which minimize the trust of not scientific people in research, especially in stem cell research. Can’t understand how this “mistake” can happened. I think everybody here write papers before and know how long it takes to design figures in the correct way the paper wants. So you need several hours and can’t see that you use the same figures, wrong designations etc.?
Whats wrong with science and pressure the researchers get because of funds and the money its so bad.

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by Malljaja http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57517 Fri, 24 May 2013 02:14:30 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57517 Because of sloppiness and haste, science has taken another hit. It’s deplorable. As scientists, how can we reason with those eager to cut budgets for the sciences if we can’t keep our house in good order, which includes maintaining the highest standards in peer review and editorial practices?

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by Rosie http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57516 Fri, 24 May 2013 01:03:50 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57516 I see two problems. First, even if the suspect images and data do not affect major conclusions, how can we trust such sloppy science? Why were the final data not vetted by the senior author prior to publication, and how can we be sure that there are not hidden problems with primary data records due to lax oversight? Second, the rushed review process clearly failed as these errors sailed right past the reviewers.

]]> Comment on Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions by Raffaele http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/cell-attributes-image-problems-in-cloning-paper-to-minor-errors-sees-no-impact-on-conclusions/#comment-57510 Fri, 24 May 2013 00:08:39 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14316#comment-57510 Other people would get university committees investigating them but everyone is trying to gloss over what are obvious serious scientific issues just because the topic is a media darling and totally in your face as to what it can accomplish.

Full scale investigation called for in this case.

]]> Comment on Cell reviewing allegations of image reuse in human embryonic stem cell cloning paper by iloveresearch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/cell-reviewing-allegations-of-image-reuse-in-human-embryonic-stem-cell-cloning-paper/#comment-57509 Fri, 24 May 2013 00:04:41 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14289#comment-57509 Absolutely not. I just read the paper and find the “allegations” particularly weak.

]]> Comment on Cell reviewing allegations of image reuse in human embryonic stem cell cloning paper by Ressci Integrity http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/cell-reviewing-allegations-of-image-reuse-in-human-embryonic-stem-cell-cloning-paper/#comment-57506 Thu, 23 May 2013 23:51:21 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14289#comment-57506 @iloverresearch: you responded already. By the way, are you involved with this work at all? Just curious – you know so much about the paper….

]]> Comment on Cell reviewing allegations of image reuse in human embryonic stem cell cloning paper by iloveresearch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/cell-reviewing-allegations-of-image-reuse-in-human-embryonic-stem-cell-cloning-paper/#comment-57505 Thu, 23 May 2013 23:48:58 +0000 http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/?p=14289#comment-57505 Justify what?

]]>