Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

From the blogosphere

The recent retraction by Nobel laureate Linda Buck and colleagues of a 2001 Nature paper sparked discussions on NPG blogs. On Action Potential, the Nature Neuroscience blog (, Debra Speert calls it “the highest profile retraction that I can recall in neuroscience”, and on the Nature Network neuroscience forum ( readers are asked for their views on the role of journals and scientists in retracting published work.

The Nature journals correction policy is at For a retraction or other type of correction to be published, all authors typically need to sign it. If some of the authors do not agree, the editors seek advice from peer reviewers and, if necessary, the institution and/or funder. In the event that the retraction or correction is published, the name(s) of the dissenting author(s) are noted in the text of the correction. More information about Buck's retraction is in a News story (Nature 452, 13; 2008), and includes a clarification from one of the paper's authors in the online comment thread.

Additional information

Visit Nautilus for regular news relevant to Nature authors → and see Peer-to-Peer for news for peer reviewers and about peer review → .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

From the blogosphere. Nature 452, xii (2008).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing