CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT AND GUIDELINES FOR ACTION

3.5 Correcting the Literature

Because of the breadth of the scientific culture, it is important to note that there is no single recognized method for addressing literature corrections. Of the various scientific disciplines reviewed for this section, the biomedical sciences have had the most experience in addressing literature correction issues. Hence, the information in this section is built largely on the literature correction policies of 2 organizations that have had extensive experience in this area: the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

The NLM is the largest medical library in the world; it serves millions of researchers through MEDLINE and develops policies annually in response to issues that surface in the biomedical publishing community. The ICMJE Uniform Requirements,1 which are endorsed by more than 500 journals, reflect the experiences of editors since 1978 and are updated regularly to address new issues in scientific publication. The guidelines of both organizations provide the greater scientific research community with a useful framework for addressing issues related to correcting the literature.

The following sections examine current literature correction practices, including definitions, a checklist for editors, and examples of language used for correcting the literature.

3.5.1 Definitions

One of the most confusing aspects associated with literature corrections is the terminology journals use to identify what is being corrected. Different terms are sometimes used interchangeably. For example, the term retraction is not applied by journals uniformly. Some journals will use the term erratum for a retraction, which can lead to confusion for the reader. For the purpose of this document, the definitions used by the NLM will serve as the gold standard for literature correction terminology.

The primary methods used for correcting the literature are errata and retractions.

• Errata. Published changes or emendations to an earlier article, frequently referred to as corrections or corrigenda, are considered by NLM to be errata, regardless of the nature or origin of the error. The NLM does not differentiate between errors that originated in the publication process and errors of logic or methodology.

• Retractions. Retractions identify a citation that was previously published and is now retracted through a formal issuance from the author, publisher, or other authorized agent. The NLM does not differentiate between articles that are retracted because of honest error and those that are retracted because of scientific misconduct or plagiarism. If the notification in the journal is labeled as a retraction or withdrawal, NLM will index it as a retraction.

• Expressions of Concern. This indexing term was introduced by the ICMJE and incorporated into the NLM system in 2004.2,3 The expression of concern is a label that an editor may use to draw attention to possible problems, but it does not go so far as to retract or correct an article. Examples of this correction format are provided at the end of this section.

3.5.2 Published Guidelines

The American Physical Society (APS) published the Supplementary Guidelines on Responsibilities of Coauthors and Collaborators4 (adopted by the APS Council on November 10, 2002), which discuss authorship responsibilities associated with maintaining integrity in what is published. The guidelines also state that "all coauthors have an obligation to provide prompt retractions or correction of errors in published works. Any individual unwilling or unable to accept appropriate responsibility for a paper should not be a coauthor."4 While not all authors who publish are members of the American Physical Sciences, anyone who publishes in that association's journal is held to these standards.

The Society for Neuroscience has been one of the leading professional organizations to address literature corrections that follow a finding of scientific misconduct. In its 1998 publication, "Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication"5 the Society outlines the following steps:

If an investigation concerning a published article or abstract determines that the article contains a serious error, then a correction or retraction must be published prominently in the journal or abstract collection in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic reference to the article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia).

If the article or abstract was authored by more than one individual and some of those individuals are found to be innocent of misconduct, this should be made clear in the published statement. Any co-authors not found to be guilty of misconduct should be invited to participate in the preparation of the correction or retraction and/or to add an indication of their agreement to the statement. However, such authors should not be permitted to block publication of the statement.6

3.5.3 Corrections and Retractions Related to Misconduct

3.5.3.1 The US Public Health Service

The US Public Health Service (PHS) Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has had a wide range of experience with journal editors and authors whose publications require literature corrections due to findings of scientific misconduct.

The ORI is the office within the PHS that is responsible for addressing scientific misconduct and research integrity related to PHS activities. One of the PHS administrative actions requires the respondent to submit a letter to the editor of the journal in which the article is being corrected due to a finding of scientific misconduct. When a respondent is required to submit a retraction or a correction of an article, the respondent must also send a copy of the retraction or correction letter to the ORI.

To ensure that editors are notified about manuscripts submitted to or published in their journal that require correction or retraction because of findings of scientific misconduct, the ORI sends the editor a letter with a copy of the Federal Register notice,7 the ORI report or the voluntary agreement signed by the respondent, and the Departmental Appeals Board decision, if applicable. This notification is sent upon publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the PHS findings and administrative actions.8

The ORI may request that journals publish corrections or retractions resulting from scientific misconduct cases. Although the ORI does not have authority to require the journal to publish the retraction or correction, it can require the scientist who committed misconduct to submit the request. Besides PHS administrative actions, requests to correct the literature may be initiated by the institution where the misconduct occurred or by a coauthor of the questioned paper before the ORI has completed its oversight review. If the request for a retraction is accepted, the editor should publish the retraction as indicated in the ICMJE's Uniform Requirements—meaning it should be labeled as such, appear in a prominent section of the journal, be listed in the table of contents, and include in its heading the title and citation of the original journal article.9

3.5.3.2 The National Science Foundation, Office Of Inspector General

The National Science Foundation, Office of The Inspector General (NSF/OIG) addresses allegations of research misconduct in relation to research funded by the NSF. To date, the NSF/OIG has not addressed scientific misconduct cases that have required literature corrections, but it relies on a grantee's institution to handle literature corrections related to findings of scientific misconduct.10

3.5.4 Processes

Literature corrections, whether in the form of errata or retractions, can be made by a variety of "authorized" agents. These agents have included authors, editor(s), publishers, department chairpersons, deans, laboratory directors, and legal counsel. It is important to mention that journals, professional societies, and government bodies have individual policies addressing how literature corrections will be managed, although many do not have specific guidelines.11,12 The NLM and the ICMJE's Uniform Requirements describe those persons from whom literature corrections will be accepted.

Of the 2 primary forms of literature corrections, "retractions" can be more difficult to attain. As indicated by the NLM, retractions are issued for the more serious literature corrections. They are most easily published when the responsible author(s) submits the request to the editor. While retractions do not necessarily reflect scientific misconduct, there are instances in which an author found guilty of scientific misconduct has refused to submit a retraction. Such situations are delicate and vary in difficulty. Because not all journals have policies on how to address literature corrections, editors are sometimes reluctant to publish a retraction without the signature of the author who committed the misconduct. Yet editors should consider their responsibility to report accurate information to their readership. The ORI has had a case in which coauthors and a responsible university official submitted a retraction when the original author refused. Section 3.5.7 below cites other cases in which coauthors submitted retractions after an author guilty of misconduct refused.13

As previously discussed, the NLM and the ICMJE are the leaders in issuing guidance and instruction on correcting the literature. The following sections outline the processes used by both.

The NLM uses the following processes for addressing errata and retractions:

Errata. When a publisher, editor, or author has published a labeled, citable erratum to an article that was cited in the MEDLINE database, NLM has amended the citation of the article with a bibliographic reference to the erratum notice, in order to alert users and refer them to the source of the revised information.

The reference to a published erratum notice is in the form of a notification that appears above the article title in the Abstract or Citation formats of PubMed. In the MEDLINE format, this information appears in the EIN (Erratum in) field. Although errors may occur in any part of the published article, NLM will add the corrected information to the citation if the erroneous data were incorporated in the original MEDLINE citation. That is, if the error occurred in the article's authorship, title, or abstract, NLM will retain the original citation, if it affects retrieval, but will add the revised data to provide the correct information. If an author's name was misspelled, the corrected name is inserted in the appropriate order and the original misspelling is moved to the end of the author list. Thus, a user who wishes to follow up on all of the authors from the journal issue will be able to retrieve on the misspelled name as well. The notice about the correction will show both the incorrect spelling of the name and the corrected form.

If, however, the error occurred in a portion of the article that is not included in the MEDLINE citation, such as the text, graphs, or tables, only a reference to the published erratum notice will be added to the MEDLINE citation. Brief errata notices are not generally indexed as independent articles. Some substantive articles or letters may, however, comprise published errata. If so, these items will be indexed with the Publication Type PUBLISHED ERRATUM. For those citations having a publication date of 2002 forward, a link will refer back to the citation for the original article. That link appears above the article title in the Abstract or Citation formats of PubMed while in the MEDLINE format the information appears in the EFR (Erratum for) field.

It is NLM's policy that errata will be acknowledged only if they are printed in a citable form; that is, an erratum notice must appear on a numbered page in an issue of the journal that originally published the article. Error notices that are inserted unbound into a journal issue or "tipped" will not be considered part of the permanent bibliographic record. An erratum notice pertaining to a portion of a journal that exists in online format only must be readily discernable in the table of contents of a subsequent issue. NLM does not make changes in the database in response to letters from authors or editors, unless such letters indicate that a substantive published erratum is forthcoming.

Retractions. Articles may be retracted or withdrawn by their authors, academic or institutional sponsor, editor, or publisher, because of pervasive error or unsubstantiated or irreproducible data. It is NLM's policy that a retraction will be indexed as a retraction only if it clearly states that the article in question is being retracted or withdrawn, and is signed by an author of the retracted paper or author's legal counsel; by the head of the department, dean, or director of the laboratory where the paper was produced; or by the journal editor. In addition, the retraction must be labeled and published in citable form; that is, the retraction must appear on a numbered page in an issue of the journal that published the retracted article.

NLM does not simply expunge the citation of a retracted article from its indexes or databases, but rather links the original to the notice of retraction, by adding a Retraction statement after the source of the retracted article on the PubMed Summary display. The bibliographic reference for the retraction notice also appears above the title in the Abstract and Citation formats in PubMed. In the MEDLINE format, it appears in the RIN (Retraction in) field. The MEDLINE record of each retracted article will be given an additional Publication Type of RETRACTED PUBLICATION (PT) as well.14

NLM makes a reciprocal linkage between the retraction statement and the retracted article. That is, the retraction statement is indexed as RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION (PT). The bibliographic reference(s) for the article(s) being retracted appear above the title in the Abstract and Citations formats in PubMed. In the MEDLINE format, they appear in the ROF (Retraction of) field.

Examples of errata and retractions found in MEDLINE are available in the online NLM fact sheet.14

The processes for errata and retractions as addressed in the ICMJE's Uniform Requirements are:

Errata. Errors may be noted in published articles that require the publication of a correction or erratum of part of the work. The corrections should appear on a numbered page, be listed in the contents page, include the complete original citation, and link to the original article and vice versa if online. It is conceivable that an error could be so serious as to vitiate the entire body of the work, but this is unlikely and should be handled by editors and authors on an individual basis. Such an error should not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new scientific information in the normal course of research. The latter require no corrections or withdrawals.

Retractions. If a fraudulent paper has been published, the journal must print a retraction… The retraction or expression of concern, so labeled, should appear on a numbered page in a prominent section of the print journal as well as in the online version, be listed in the contents page, and include in its heading the title of the original article. It should not simply be a letter to the editor. Ideally, the first author should be the same in the retraction as in the article, although under certain circumstances the editor may accept retractions by other responsible persons. The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted and include a full original citation reference to it.

The validity of previous work by the author of a fraudulent paper cannot be assumed. Editors may ask the author's institution to assure them of the validity of earlier work published in their journals or to retract it. If this is not done, editors may choose to publish an announcement expressing concern that the validity of previously published work is uncertain.15

3.5.5 Editor's Checklist

Because literature corrections may occur at different points during the publication process, no single specific formula is applicable in all situations. Editors typically address these matters on a case-by-case basis. However, there are some general issues that an editor should consider when addressing a literature correction:

What is the nature of the correction request? On the basis of definitions previously outlined, is a correction, retraction, or expression of concern warranted? The type of correction that is published should be determined by the nature of the correction.

Who makes the request? Ideally, the request should be made by the responsible author(s). However, as noted in an earlier section, there are occasions when a third party must make the request when authors disagree about the responsibility for the correction. The editor's concern should be correcting the literature so the readership can rely on the information published.

Who writes the correction? Depending on the situation, the literature correction should be made by the author(s) of the paper being corrected. If there is disagreement, the correction should be written by a responsible institutional official or the editor.

What wording should be used for the correction? The readership is best served when the literature correction states what is being corrected. Errata are often typographical errors. Retractions are typically made owing to honest error or, sometimes, scientific misconduct. As stated by the ICMJE guidelines, the text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted and include the full original citation. Examples of wording are provided at the end of this document.

When should the correction be published? Depending on the situation, an editor should publish the correction as soon as reasonably possible. If the corrections are the product of a scientific misconduct investigation, this would occur after a finding of scientific misconduct has been made by an institution or an oversight agency, if appropriate.

On the rare occasion in which a paper under review for possible scientific misconduct included a public health concern, it would be prudent for the institution conducting the investigation to notify the journal editor of this public health concern. The decision of when to publish a retraction then rests with the editor.

In addition to those presented above, an editor may need to consider the following questions, which may not have simple answers:

Is there a statute of limitations for the publication of errata and/or retractions? As an example, there have recently been cases in which figure panel duplications were identified in papers published more than 5 to 10 years ago. Is it reasonable or appropriate to publish a correction or retraction of work that may have been replicated in subsequent publications in the same or other journals? Should it depend on the extent of errors in the original publication? Should it depend on a finding of fraud or misconduct, or is simple error sufficient to warrant a correction or retraction of a paper that is 5 to 10 years old?

Can the same (or different) authors republish findings of a paper that has been retracted for fraud or a simple error? The implicit assumption is that scientific findings that have been retracted either for fraud or simple experimental error are no longer supported by the available data and, therefore, are not valid. If subsequent experiments by the same or a different laboratory "redemonstrate" the retracted scientific conclusions with appropriately robust data, is it appropriate for an editor to consider such a paper for publication in the same journal that published the original manuscript and retraction? Is it appropriate for the editor of another journal to publish such a paper?

If a third party alerts an editor to multiple figure panel duplications within a given published paper, and the authors of the paper assert that these are honest errors in compiling the figures for publication and do not affect the central conclusions, what is the appropriate course of action for the editor to take?

Is the decision as to whether to publish a correction or a retraction impacted by whether the main results have been replicated in subsequent experiments from the same or a different laboratory?

Does the editor have a responsibility to protect published authors from unsubstantiated or spurious allegations of fraud or misconduct, and what is the editor's responsibility in following up on anonymous complaints of fraud?

What is the appropriate course of action for an editor to take regarding allegations of fraud or misconduct that are not covered by ORI or other government funding agencies or institutions?

3.5.6 Other Avenues for Correction and Clarification

Some journals offer options other than formal corrections and clarifications submitted to a journal by the authors of a published paper. These options allow the airing of important critiques and concerns after publication. Such forums offer researchers the opportunity to challenge the results, interpretations, and/or main conclusions of a published research paper, and are often accompanied by a response from the authors of the original paper. Unlike traditional "letters to the editor," these manuscripts are peer reviewed and are indexed by PubMed and/or other indexing services.

Examples of these types of correspondence include:

• Technical Comments (Science): These manuscripts can be up to 1000 words long with 15 references and 2 figures or tables. They may be submitted up to 6 months after publication of the original paper in Science and are typically accompanied by a formal response from the original authors. The full text of comments and responses are published online only (abstracts appear in print and online).

• Brief Communications Arising (Nature): These manuscripts can be up to 600 words long with 15 references and 1 figure or table. They are published online only.

• Matters Arising (Cell): These manuscripts are for major challenges to the main message of a published Cell paper. They follow the same format and length as Cell research articles and are published both in print and online. In most cases, authors of the original Cell paper are given an opportunity to provide a written response that is evaluated first by the editors and then may then be sent with the Matters Arising manuscript to peer reviewers. Depending on the recommendations of the peer reviewers, the response may or may not be published along with the Matters Arising manuscript.

• Correspondence (Cell): These manuscripts can be up to 500 words and are published in print and online with up to 1 figure that is published online only. They are accompanied by a response from authors of original Cell paper.

3.5.7 Examples of Literature Corrections

Just as the policies for publishing literature corrections vary, the actual publication of the corrections varies as well. The following section provides examples of literature corrections (errata and retractions) and information about who submitted them. The literature corrections were selected from publicly available sources, and their presentation reflects the authenticity and style of the respective journals.

Examples of Corrections Submitted by Authors

Errata

1. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:2059. Erratum submitted by authors.

   In an article in the 1 November 2004 issue of the Journal (Gumbo T, Louie A, Deziel MR, Parsons LM, Salfinger M, Drusano GL. Selection of a moxifloxacin dose that suppresses drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, by use of an in vitro pharmacodynamic infection model and mathematical modeling. J Infect Dis. 2004;190:164251), a ">" should have preceded "1 mg/L" in the sixth line in the right-hand column of page 1644. The authors regret this omission.

2. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:365. Erratum submitted by authors.

   Errors in Text. In the Original Article by Birmaher et al titled "Clinical Course of Children and Adolescents With Bipolar Spectrum Disorders," published in the February issue of the ARCHIVES (2006;63:175-183), errors occurred in the text on pages 176 and 179. On page 176, in the "Methods" section, "Subjects" subsection, fifth paragraph, the third sentence should have read as follows: "Subjects with BP-II had the onset of their mood disorders significantly later and had significantly lower rates of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than subjects with BP-I and BP-NOS (P‹.05)." On page 179, under "Weekly Mood Symptomatic Status by BP Subtype," first paragraph, the second sentence should have read as follows: "Within the syndromal symptoms, subjects with BP-I spent significantly more weeks with syndromal mania and mixed symptoms than those with BP-NOS, and subjects with BP-II spent significantly more time with depressive symptoms than those with BP-I and BP-NOS (all comparisons, P‹.001)."

   Retractions

3. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008 July 17 [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000339045.74426.52 PMID: 18635819. Retraction submitted by all authors.

   Wolfort RM, Manriquez R, Stokes KY, Granger DN. Platelet-Derived RANTES Mediates

   Hypercholesterolemia-Induced Superoxide Production and Endothelial Dysfunction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008 July 17. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 18635819

   The authors wish to retract the above-referenced article due to concerns related to the authenticity and accuracy of the data presented. Since the original data generated for superoxide production and Nox-2 expression by the first author (RMW) could not be found, we are unable to verify the data presented in Figures 1-4 (superoxide production) and the Table (Nox-2expression). In addition, some of the myography (acetylcholine-induced vasodilation) data sets presented in this manuscript are identical to data sets produced by the first author for other publications. We deeply regret any scientific misconceptions that have resulted from the publication of this manuscript.

4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:1949. Retraction submitted by co-authors, but not the author guilty of scientific misconduct.

   For the article "Sodium channels in the cytoplasm of Schwann cells" by J. M. Ritchie, J. A. Black, S. G. Waxman, and K. J. Angelides, which appeared in number 23, December 3, 1990, of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (87, 9290-9294), the undersigned authors would like to note the following: "This paper included immunocytochemical studies using antibody 7493. We interpreted immunostaining with antibody 7493 as providing information about sodium channel localization based on an immunological characterization of antibody 7493 carried out in the laboratory of K. J. Angelides. As reported in the Federal Register on March 12, 1999, based on the report of an investigation by the Baylor College of Medicine and on information obtained by the National Institutes of Health Office of Research Integrity (ORI) during its oversight review into allegations of scientific misconduct by Angelides, ORI, on March 10, 1997, found that Angelides falsified the description of the data in the corresponding text and legend of Fig. 1 of this paper and that his conduct constituted scientific misconduct. The Appeals Board of the Department of Health and Human Services (DAB) issued a decision on February 5, 1999, in which it affirmed the findings of ORI. Given the allegations of irregularity in the immunological characterization of antibody 7493 and the findings that ORI and DAB have made, we cannot stand behind the interpretation of results using this antibody. We therefore retract the immunocytochemical and immunoultrastructural results presented in this paper." (J. M. Ritchie, J. A. Black, S. G. Waxman)

5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:12732. Retraction submitted by co-author, but not the author guilty of scientific misconduct.

   An author (Hans-Jürgen Gruss) of the article "Tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor (TRAF)-1, TRAF-2, and TRAF-3 interact in vivo with the CD30 cytoplasmic domain; TRAF-2 mediates CD30-induced nuclear factor kappa B activation" by Stéphane Ansieau, Inka Scheffrahn, George Mosialos, Heike Brand, Justus Duyster, Kenneth Kaye, Josephine Harada, Bill Dougall, Gabi Hübinger, Elliott Kieff, Friedhelm Herrmann, Achim Leutz, and Hans-Jürgen Gruss, which appeared in number 24, November 26, 1996, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (93, 14053-14058), has admitted scientific misconduct in misrepresenting data including Figs. 2C and 3. Because the experiments of Professor Gruss are a major part of this publication, I request that the paper be withdrawn. (Elliott Kieff)

6. Science 2007;317 (5839):748. DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5839.748b Partial retraction.

   Retraction of an Interpretation

   In the Report "Structure of the 8200-year cold event revealed by a speleothem trace element record" (1), we presented a 7762-µm-long ion probe trace element traverse chosen to include the 8200-year event as detected in a previously published laser ablation oxygen isotope study from the same stalagmite (2). The oxygen isotope anomaly was distinct and dropped 8‰ below baseline values to a low value for the entire Holocene of -12‰ and was reproducible on a reverse track. However, recent reanalysis of the calcite believed to contain the oxygen isotope anomaly suggests that the anomaly was probably an analytical artifact possibly caused by laser ablation-induced fracturing during the original analysis (3). Consequently, without the original δ18O "marker," the precise location in the stalagmite of calcite deposited during the 8200-year event is uncertain.

   The trace element data in this Report, previously believed to correspond precisely with the entire 8200-year event, are now believed to represent the hydrological and bioproductivity response in western Ireland to a cold/dry event of uncertain provenance and intensity. The U-Th-derived dates of the event correspond approximately with the 8200-year event in Greenland ice cores, but without the additional guidance of the δ18O anomaly, the precise timing in relation to the 8200-year event is now somewhat ambiguous. Unfortunately, it is now unlikely that the approximately 114-year duration ion probe track coincides with the entire 8200-year event (if at all); thus, the ~37-year estimate derived for its duration is probably no longer accurate. However, the trace element data remain robust and are interpreted as reflecting colder and drier conditions in western Ireland, followed by the return to more maritime conditions at the end of the first-order trace element anomaly. Additionally, the novel application of annual trace element cycles to build a high-resolution chronology and reconstruct paleoseasonality remains unchanged.

   James U. Baldini
   Department of Earth Sciences
   Durham University
   South Road
   Durham DH1 3LE, UK

   Frank McDermott
   Department of Geology
   University College Dublin
   Dublin 4, Ireland

   Ian J. Fairchild
   School of Geography
   Earth and Environmental Science
   University of Birmingham
   Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

   References

   1. Baldini JU, McDermott F, Fairchild IJ. Science 2003;296: 2203-2206.
   2. McDermott F, Mattey DP, Hawkesworth C. Science 2001;294:1328.
   3. Fairchild IJ, et al. Earth Sci. Rev. 2006;75:105.

   Examples of corrections submitted by editors

   Retractions

7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:15271. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406725101. Retraction submitted by editors.

   For the article "Prevention of renovascular and cardiac pathophysiological changes in hypertension by angiotensin II type 1 receptor antisense gene therapy," by Jeffrey R. Martens, Phyllis Y. Reaves, Di Lu, Michael J. Katovich, Kathleen H. Berecek, Sanford P. Bishop, Mohan K. Raizada, and Craig H. Gelband, which appeared in issue 5, March 3, 1998, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (95, 2664-2669), after an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Craig H. Gelband admitted to falsification of data, including Fig. 4 A and B. ORI determined that Dr. Gelband is solely responsible for the falsification. The editors, therefore, hereby retract the paper.

8. BMJ. 1998;316:1700. Retraction submitted by the editor.

   The BMJ is retracting the paper by MH Williams and C Bowie (BMJ. 1993;306:95-98) at the request of Dr Bowie. The General Medical Council found Dr Williams guilty of professional misconduct in February 1998 on charges which included research fraud. Dr Williams was responsible for the data collection of the original interview and examination survey in 1989 and the follow up telephone survey in 1990. Dr Bowie has been unable to verify that the data collection was carried out in an honest way. He did not scrutinise the data sheets at the time of the surveys; the data sheets of both surveys have been destroyed; and none of the 18 people still alive in Somerset and contacted by telephone six years later could remember the telephone interview.

9. Science 20 January 2006;311(5759):335 DOI: 10.1126/science.1124926 Retraction.

   Editorial Retraction

   The final report from the investigation committee of Seoul National University (SNU) (1) has concluded that the authors of two papers published in Science (2,3) have engaged in research misconduct and that the papers contain fabricated data. With regard to Hwang et al., 2004 (2), the Investigation Committee reported that the data showing that DNA from human embryonic stem cell line NT-1 is identical to that of the donor are invalid because they are the result of fabrication, as is the evidence that NT-1 is a bona fide stem cell line. Further, the committee found that the claim in Hwang et al., 2005 (3) that 11 patient-specific embryonic stem cells line were derived from cloned blastocystsis based on fabricated data. According to the report of the Investigation Committee, the laboratory "does not possess patient-specific stem cell lines or any scientific basis for claiming to have created one." Because the final report of the SNU investigation indicated that a significant amount of the data presented in both papers is fabricated, the editors of Science feel that an immediate and unconditional retraction of both papers is needed. We therefore retract these two papers and advise the scientific community that the results reported in them are deemed to be invalid.

   As we post this retraction, seven of the 15 authors of Hwang et al., 2004 (2) have agreed to retract their paper. All of the authors of Hwang et al., 2005 (3) have agreed to retract their paper.

   Science regrets the time that the peer reviewers and others spent evaluating these papers as well as the time and resources that the scientific community may have spent trying to replicate these results.

   Donald Kennedy
   Editor-in-Chief

   References

   1. Investigation Committee Report, Seoul National University, 10 Jan. 2006. (Members: Chairman Myung-Hee Chung, SNU, Uhtaek Oh, SNU, Hong-Hee Kim, SNU, Un Jong Pak, SNU, Yong Sung Lee, Hanyang University, In Won Lee, SNU, In Kwon Chung, Yonsei University, Jin Ho Chung, SNU)
   2. Hwang WS, et al., Evidence of a Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line Derived from a Cloned Blastocyst, Science 2004;303(5664):1669-1674.
   3. Hwang WS et al., Patient-Specific Embryonic Stem Cells Derived from Human SCNT Blastocysts, Science 2005;308(5729):1777-1783.

10. Gut. 2001;48:286. Retraction submitted by the editor.

    Gut is retracting the paper by AK Banerjee and TJ Peters, "Experimental non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced enteropathy in the rat—similarities to inflammatory bowel disease and effect of thromboxane synthetase inhibitors" (Gut. 1990;31:1358-1364) and the abstract by AK Banerjee, R Sherwood, JA Rennie and TJ Peters, "Sulphasalazine reduces indomethacin induced changes in small intestinal permeability in man" (Gut. 1990;31:A593) at the request of Dr Banerjee. At the end of November 2000, the General Medical Council found Dr Banerjee guilty of serious professional misconduct and suspended him for 12 months. Both articles were deemed to contain information which was deliberately falsified.

11. Biotechnol Adv. 2004;22:619. Retraction submitted by the editor.

    The article "Biotransformation of drugs by microbial cultures for predicting mammalian drug metabolism" (Srisilam K, Veeresham C. Biotechnol Adv. 2003;21:3-39) has been retracted at the request of the editors because the authors had infringed the normal professional ethical codes by plagiarizing another publication: "Microbial models for drug metabolism" (Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 1999;63:69-218).

    Examples of retractions submitted by others

12. Virus Res. 2004;106:83. Retraction submitted by the publisher.

    Retraction of "Nuclear factor kappa B (NF?B) dependent modulation of Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) promotor activity" (Tao YG, Tan YN, Liu YP, Song X, Zeng L, Gu HH, Tang M, Li W, Yi W, Cao Y. Virus Res. 2004;104:61-70.) The publisher would like to announce that this paper has been retracted. A paper by the same group of authors containing essentially the same data and conclusions was published a short time earlier (Cell Signal. 2004;16:781-790). The authors have agreed to withdraw their paper from Virus Research.

13. J Clin Invest. 2003;112:1265. Retraction submitted by investigative panel.

    The following manuscripts were part of an investigation in Germany.

    Herrmann F, Oster W, Meuer SC Lindemann A, Mertelsmann RH. Interleukin 1 stimulates T lymphocytes to produce granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor. J Clin Invest. 1988;81:1415-1418.

    Lindemann A, Riedel D, Oster W, Ziegler-Heitbrock HW, Mertelsmann R, Herrmann F. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor induces cytokine secretion by human polymorphonuclear leukocytes. J Clin Invest. 1989;83:1308-1312.

    Oster W, Cicco NA, Klein H, Hirano T, Kishimoto T, Lindemann A, Mertelsmann RH, Herrmann F. Participation of the cytokines interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin 1-beta secreted by acute myelogenous leukemia blasts in autocrine and paracrine leukemia growth control. J Clin Invest. 1989;84:451-457.

    Nehls MC, Brenner DA, Gruss H-J, Dierbach H, Mertelsmann R, Herrmann F. Mithramycin selectively inhibits collagen- 1(I) gene expression in human fibroblast. J Clin Invest. 1993;92:2916-2921.

    These manuscripts were evaluated as part of the Task Force Friedhelm Hermann, a group that investigated the findings published from the lab of Friedhelm Hermann for the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The independent committee reviewed concerns related to the validity of the data associated with the above papers. As a result of the committee's findings, we are issuing a retraction of these papers. However, not all contributions by all authors of the papers were found to be fraudulent, and some authors have stated that their experimental contributions were legitimate.

    Examples of expressions of concern

14. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2137. Expression of concern submitted by editors.

    In the issue of January 31, 2002, we published a study by Helmut Schiffl, MD, Susanne M. Lang, MD, and Rainald Fischer, MD (Daily hemodialysis and the outcome of acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:305-310). It has come to our attention, through communication with Klaus Peter, Dean of the Medical Faculty at Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany, that there is an ongoing investigation into potential scientific misconduct in the performance of this study. We will inform our readers of the outcome of this investigation when it is complete.

15. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:11816. Expression of concern submitted by editors.

    Editorial Expression of Concern: The editors express a note of concern regarding the article "Preferential repair of ionizing radiation-induced damage in the transcribed strand of an active human gene is defective in Cockayne syndrome," by Steven A. Leadon and Priscilla K. Cooper, which appeared in issue 22, November 15, 1993, of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (90, 10499-10503).

    An ad hoc committee at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) has concluded that the results published by Dr Steven A. Leadon, former Professor of Radiation Oncology in the School of Medicine at UNC, which are based on his monoclonal antibody assays for transcription-coupled repair (TCR), should not be relied on unless independent verification exists.

    After reviewing laboratory notebooks, the investigating committee could not confirm that equal amounts of DNA were loaded onto gel lanes that were then assayed for TCR. The committee concluded that the reported preferential repair of the transcribed DNA strand was not supported by available photographs of ethidium bromide-stained gels. The committee further concluded that Dr Leadon was solely responsible, at least for the last 7 years, for the step of the assay that determined the loading of the gel lanes. In addition, in the opinion of the UNC committee, this biased loading was deliberate and done without the knowledge of other scientists in his laboratory or his collaborators.

    As a consequence of this investigation, the UNC committee requested that PNAS evaluate the results of the above-cited paper, which depends critically, but not exclusively, on Dr Leadon's TCR assay.

    We have investigated the matter and are concerned about the validity of the results. We know of no independent verification of the data in the published figures. We therefore think it reasonable for the scientific community to view with extreme caution the results of these assays in the PNAS article. The editors emphasize that our skepticism does not extend to the validity of TCR, which has been amply corroborated by other experiments.

    Dr Leadon does not concur with this assessment and note of concern. Although Dr Cooper cannot of her own knowledge dispute the stated concern with the TCR data, she attests that the conclusions from the paper are valid, based on subsequent work in several laboratories, including her own.

    Example of a retraction that followed an earlier expression of concern

16. Science 2006;314(5799), 592. Editorial Expression of Concern.

    In the 17 February 2006 issue, we published the study "CDX2 gene expression and trophectoderm lineage specification in mouse embryos" by K. Deb et al. (1). It has come to our attention, through communication with Robert Hall of the Provost's office at the University of Missouri Columbia and the senior author of the paper, R. Michael Roberts of the University of Missouri Columbia, that there is an ongoing investigation of this study by the University of Missouri. We are therefore informing readers that the results reported therein may not be reliable.

    Donald Kennedy
    Editor-in-Chief

    Reference

    1. Deb K, Sivaguru M, Yong HY, Roberts RM. Science 2006;311(5763), 992-996.

    Science 2007;317(5837):450. Retraction.

    We wish to retract our Report "CDX2 gene expression and trophectoderm lineage specification in mouse embryos" (1). Allegations of research misconduct were received by the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) Provost, and an investigation found that the first author (K.D.) engaged in research misconduct by intentionally falsifying and fabricating digital images in the preparation of Figs. 4I; 4N; 4S; 2G; 3, J to L; S2, V to X; and S6, I to K accompanying the Science article. In addition, the original raw image files for the majority of the figures in the paper have not been located (the exceptions being the confocal scanning images in Figs. S1, S3, S4, S5, and S6), raising the possibility that the data they represent may also be suspect. We have decided to withdraw the article in its entirety in view of the fact that the paper was founded at least in part on falsified or fabricated images.

    The corresponding author (R.M.R.) takes responsibility for placing excessive trust in his co-worker and for not assuring that a complete set of raw data existed at the time the questions first arose about the paper. We deeply regret any scientific misconceptions that have resulted from the publication of this article.

    The first author resigned from MU shortly after the allegations of research misconduct were received and could not be found to sign the retraction.

    R. Michael Roberts
    Division of Animal Sciences
    University of Missouri
    Columbia, MO 65211, USA

    M. Sivaguru
    Institute for Genomic Biology
    University of Illinois
    Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA

    H. Y. Yong
    BK21 Dental Research Institute
    College of Dentistry
    Seoul National University
    28 Yongun-dong, Chongno-gu
    Seoul 110-749, Korea

    Reference

    1. Deb K, Sivaguru M, Yong HY, Roberts RM. Science 2006;311(5763):992-996.

(Authorship: Mary Scheetz took the lead in writing this section of the white paper on behalf of the CSE Editorial Policy Committee. Heather Goodell, Emelie Marcus, and Tara Marathe revised this section for the 2009 Update. Members of the Editorial Policy Committee and the CSE Board of Directors reviewed and commented on it. This section was formally approved by the CSE Board of Directors on March 29, 2009.)

Return to Top

Return to the Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journals table of contents page.

1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/ (Accessed March 28, 2009).
2. S. Kotzin, Chief, Indexing, MEDLINE; written communication, December 2004.
3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. III.B. Corrections, retractions and "expressions of concern." Available at: http://www.icmje.org/#correct (Accessed March 28, 2009).
4. American Physical Society. Supplementary guidelines on responsibilities of coauthors and collaborators. Available at: http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm#supplementary_guidelines1 (Accessed March 28, 2009).
5. Society for Neuroscience. Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication. Available at: http://web.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=responsibleConduct (Accessed March 28, 2009).
6. Society for Neuroscience. Dealing with possible scientific misconduct. Available at: http://web.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=responsibleConduct_dealingWithPossibleScientificMisconduct (Accessed March 28, 2009).
7. The Assistant Secretary for Health makes the final PHS decision on findings of research misconduct and the imposition of administrative actions after reviewing the recommendations made by the ORI. See also http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/phs_decision.shtml (Accessed March 28, 2009).
8. The ORI has adopted a target timeline of 480 days for completing misconduct cases that involve research supported by the PHS. The timeline begins with the initiation of an institutional inquiry and concludes with review by the Assistant Secretary for Health. Cases that are appealed to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) or investigated by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) are not included, because the DAB regulation establishes 9 months as a goal for completion of a hearing and the OIG is independent from Departmental supervision. Extensions are granted for reasonable cause. The general timeline can be found at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol8_no1.pdf (p. 13) (Accessed March 28, 2009).
9. Office of Public Health and Science. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct: a guidance document for editors. Available at: http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/masm_2000.pdf (Accessed March 28, 2009).
10. J. Kroll, Head of Administrative Investigation, NSF/OIG; written communication, January 2005.
11. Scheetz MD. Coming full circle: can misconduct be prevented? Presented at: The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct: An Educational Retreat. Leesburg, Va; November 9, 2003.
12. Scheetz MD. Promoting integrity through "instructions to authors" a preliminary analysis. Available at: http://69.59.142.46/documents/instructions_authors.pdf (Accessed March 28, 2009).
13. An investigation conducted by the University of California, San Francisco, found that an author falsified data in a publication on AIDS research. According to the investigation, he selectively suppressed data that did not support his hypothesis and reported consistently positive data, even though only 1 of his 4 experiments had produced positive results. The falsified data were then used as the basis for a grant application to the National Institutes of Health. The ORI concurred in the university's finding. The researcher executed a "voluntary exclusion and settlement agreement" with PHS in which he agreed not to apply for federal grant or contract funds and would not serve on PHS advisory committees, boards, or peer review groups for 3 years. The publication was retracted. When the author refused to agree to a retraction, the New England Journal of Medicine published the retraction without his signature but with the signatures of the rest of the coauthors and of the assistant vice chancellor of the university. Case study presented at: The Journal's Role in Scientific Misconduct: An Educational Retreat. Leesburg, Va; November 9, 2003.
14. National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retractions, partial retractions, corrected and republished articles, duplicate publications, comments (including author replies), updates, patient summaries, and republished (reprinted) articles policy for MEDLINE. Available at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/errata.html (Accessed March 28, 2009).
15. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. III.B. Corrections, retractions and "expressions of concern." Available at: http://www.icmje.org/#correct (Accessed March 28, 2009).