Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 30 July 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.753
News
Editor retracts sperm-creation paper
Plagiarism accusation hits stem-cell research.
A paper reporting the creation of sperm-like cells from human embryonic stem cells has been retracted.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I'm not familiar with the wording in the alledged copy or the original text it supposedly was copied from. if indeed it was a verbatim or remarked rip-off then i can understand the action of retraction. it is always best to give credit where credit is due. however there are often a limited number of ways to express, describe, define and so forth some presentations of ideas or concepts. although my posted comment is 'original' i'm really not certain whether anyone else may have said or put into print in some blog, forum or chat the words i've just typed. guess i'll hear from the copyright cops if it is a repeat. seriously the best advice is to acknowledge the work of others. in doing so you save yourself a lot of trouble and humiliation.
Science develop with contraversy but in this case authory should clerify the truth & should avoid cheap popularity. Experiment should be repeatrd infront of all leading experts to dig out the fact. Anurag chaurasia, ICAR, India
The comments by Dr Parker, the journal editor, are awkwardly insincere. He claims that the paper was made E-pub on 7th July and alerted by editors of Biology of Reproduction for plagiarism. It is impossible, because out of personal interest I checked the paper’s availability (whole content) every day after 7th of July but I kept receiving this message from publisher: “the paper is not ready yet�. It was actually the case until 22nd of July when a message appeared for the paper declaring that it was withdrawn. So, this paper’s content has never been available to public, probably because of the authors not having accepted the proof. So, my question from Dr parker is that “how could the editors of Biology of reproduction be aware of the content of an unpublished paper?! Sure, there is a conspiracy here for plotting an awkward type of set-up for underplaying the great job of Newcastle University team and here a person like Dr Parker, the journal editor, is the star of this shameful show pleasing the jealous competitors who have been always in dream of such a great scientific achievement. Well done anyway Newcastle University, and keep up with doing your great jobs of pioneering research.
I can not understand the journal editor‘s decision at all. He requested first the correct version of the paper from the authors, but he himself retracted the correct version after submission. So, why did he ask for correct version and then for confirming of the second proof-reading of the paper? It seems that he had made his decision far before and his action appears more like a political mischief rather than a sound and fair decision based upon solid reasoning. It is a big shame, that we witness such shameful actions in scientific field by the people abusing their position and power!
This is the first time in my life that I am seeing two proofs for one paper and then retracting the correct version at the time of proof-reading. It is a completely mad and illegal action by the journal’s editor with serious legal consequences for him. I think Newcastle University should very soon start prosecuting the misconduct committed by Dr Parker, the journal’s editor. It is really important because it would stop any future misconducts of this kind, placing the pioneering scientists with their brilliant achievements in a safer place. So, please legally prosecute the journal editor for his unlawful and ridiculous decision.
I had proposed a couple of years ago the following definition of plagiarism: "Plagiarism is a falsification of the fact of authorship". Plagiarism is not always just copying and pasting, therefore, the question should always be asked - what exactly was plagiarised: ideas, experiments or words? Second, it is most important whether plagiarised research was published or unpublished. Plagiarising unpublished research is most damaging to the original author; the plagiarist in such cases must be fired. So, the severity of the case must be considered and included in the editor's judgement. Moreover, some are even trying to exclude plagiarism of unpublished research from the definition of plagiarism: http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/committee.htm Clearly, the discussion of the practices is very much needed.
We are hearing very controversial news about the retraction of Prof. Nayernia's publication from Stem Cells and Development. I read the nature news and comments on this news. In one comments, it was written that Dr. Parker asked Prof. Nayernia to redraft the plagiarized text and Prof. Nayernia did it very quickly. The journal incorporated the corrected introduction to a new proof. That means that Prof. Nayernia react on editor's request very quickly. There are two proofs available from the Journal. Why the journal did not accept the corrected proof which was submitted by Prof. Nayernia weeks ago? I am very interested to know the retraction and withdrawal policy of the Journal and Publisher. Are both following the same policy? Based on which policy has this decision made? I know that in general editors, publishers or funding agencies can decide to retract a paper, but the usual policy is that the authors themselves must retract. Only in extreme circumstances would an editor retract a paper without the agreement of the authors, but I know that it is very rare that authors will voluntarily retract. Why Dr. Parker ignored the corrected proofs. Dr. Parker’s decision was after submission of corrected proof.
I have received the retracted paper from the author, and I see no problem at all with it even when I put it into special software. The anonymous comment made above (by “b. More Critical� sender) along with his breach of anti-copy right law clearly confirms my points above about the ill will and sinister attitude behind the decision made by the journal editor, profiling it as a pre-designed plot against a British university therefore buying time for the overseas rivals to make their first record of this great scientific achievement. My clear question here is that why the anonymous sender above should have a copy of the paper which was sent in error. We all know that it should be completely in the hand of the journal and nobody else, unless the journal, as I stated above, wanted willingly to breach the basic regulation of copy right and disseminate the unpublished paper (with no accepted proof) to the external bodies in line with its pre-designed conspiracy against a novel scientific achievement. I strongly recommend the Newcastle University that they request a trial for this case against the journal, and the journal should answer this very simple question that based upon what regulations or policy they could retract a clean and correct version of a paper with no scientific problem, especially when the journal itself requested for the correct version???
We heard that the journal editor "Dr parker" was under heavy pressure by the jealous competitors and rivals for finding an excuse for not publishing this masterpiece of scietific achievement. That is why he unfaily and merely politically dicided to not publish the correct version of this great paper after the second poof process. It is easily understandable form his comments above. But, the question is why such a great achievement should be send to such a weak journal, although the answer may be that they did not want to be scooped by their competitors and therefore decided for a quicker publication. But anyhow, it is like putting a truck load over a mule. It is sure that the mule would give up the load or otherwise would die.
I looked at the two papers in question (the plagiarised one I retrieved from the link that was here but no longer is here). And let me tell you that I am shocked by the EXTREME INFANTILISM of all persons involved. I don't see much crime committed by anyone, just extreme infantilism. I take pleasure in repeating this because I believe this is what drives people now and it must be addressed. Now, I found the phrases plagiarised from the review; there is no reference to the review, so, my opinion is that it is not only intentional, but malicious, period. But, I fail to understand WHY. Why someone would do this? Infantilism! The phrases I found are in the Introduction (although I did not read all). I cannot say that the author of the original review is much harmed. But I can say that if the research will prove to be reported honestly, I am very sorry for the plagiarist; I believe severe reprimand DONE PUBLICLY would be enough. The research paper should not have been affected. To conclude: I belive that openness and FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE can overcome the fear and the infantilism that now threaten science.
The link to the retracted article mentioned in my earlier comment (deleted by moderator) no longer exists. That was quick ! I have no affiliation with that website, nor the journals or authors involved. I was curious and stumbled across the pdf after a googling the doi. It might still be found though, for now, using other search engines. Retractions are often made after print publication, so articles can be accessed and we are free to reach our own conclusions on their legitimacy. This paper was an offically published pre-print (i.e. pending copyediting and proof corrections) and was made available on-line at the 'Stem Cells and Development' website to be downloaded by journal subscribers. The paper has since essentially vanished, leaving no recourse for comparison to a future version of this article should it be published elsewhere. That's unfortunate. Having read it, it is my opinion that the editor had no other option than to retract it because a correction would not suffice (the authors wish to replace nearly all of the introduction with the following... and apoligize for any inconvenience). This was either deliberate plaigirism or the result of a HUGE unfortunate mistake on the part of one of the authors and the latter implies copying/pasting that is certainly not part of any normal manucript writing process. That it went unnoticed by other authors is not surpirising. Have you ever run one of your co-authored manuscripts through anti-plaigirsim software before signing off, because this should get you thinking about it. Lee et al ought to spend this weekend writing a proper introducton then post their article on the Nature Precedings website.
There is such thing as record of science; there is record of history; there is record of evidence. It's wrong to wipe these out, it's wrong to burn books, but the times now are weird.
Stem Cells and Development's action is in sharp contrast with what is normally done by Cell stem cell http://bit.ly/1C8Mnx
I am quite shocked. How is it possible that the first author - a postdoc - is removed just to resubmit the paper to another journal with the other authors still in place? That should be equally regarded as questionable scientific conduct. It's nice to have found a skapegoat.
Quote referred to "The name of Dr Lee has been removed from the first authorship,... The paper will now be submitted to another peer-reviewed academic journal."