IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i4d10.1007_s11192-021-03871-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer A. Byrne

    (New South Wales Health Statewide Biobank, New South Wales Health Pathology
    The University of Sydney)

  • Yasunori Park

    (The University of Sydney)

  • Rachael A. West

    (The University of Sydney
    Kids Research, The Children’s Hospital At Westmead)

  • Amanda Capes-Davis

    (The University of Sydney
    CellBank Australia, Children’s Medical Research Institute)

  • Bertrand Favier

    (University Grenoble Alpes, Team GREPI, Etablissement Français du Sang)

  • Guillaume Cabanac

    (University of Toulouse)

  • Cyril Labbé

    (University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, LIG)

Abstract

The capacity of the scientific literature to self-correct is of vital importance, but few studies have compared post-publication journal responses to specific error types. We have compared journal responses to a specific reagent error in 31 human gene knockdown publications, namely a non-targeting or negative control nucleotide sequence that is instead predicted to target a human gene. The 31 papers published by 13 biomedical journals generated 26 published responses (14 retractions, 5 expressions of concern, 7 author corrections which included one resolved expression of concern) as well as 6 stated decisions to take no action. Variations in published responses were noted both between journals and by 4 journals that published different responses to at least 2 papers. A subset of published responses revealed conflicting explanations for the wrongly identified control reagent, despite 30/31 papers obtaining their gene knockdown reagents from the same external supplier. Viewed collectively, different journal responses to human gene knockdown publications with a common reagent error type suggest that editorial staff require more support to interpret post-publication notifications of incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents. We propose a draft template to facilitate the communication, interpretation and investigation of published errors, including errors affecting research reagents.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer A. Byrne & Yasunori Park & Rachael A. West & Amanda Capes-Davis & Bertrand Favier & Guillaume Cabanac & Cyril Labbé, 2021. "The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3513-3534, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03871-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jennifer A. Byrne & Cyril Labbé, 2017. "Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1471-1493, March.
    2. Jonathan Knight, 2001. "When the chips are down," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6831), pages 860-861, April.
    3. Cyril Labbé & Guillaume Cabanac & Rachael A. West & Thierry Gautier & Bertrand Favier & Jennifer A. Byrne, 2020. "Flagging incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical papers: To what extent does the leading publication format impede automatic error detection?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1139-1156, August.
    4. David B. Allison & Andrew W. Brown & Brandon J. George & Kathryn A. Kaiser, 2016. "Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7588), pages 27-29, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    3. Kafadar, Karen & Phang, Tzulip, 2003. "Transformations, background estimation, and process effects in the statistical analysis of microarrays," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 313-338, October.
    4. Thomas C Südhof, 2016. "Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-4, August.
    5. Cyril Labbé & Guillaume Cabanac & Rachael A. West & Thierry Gautier & Bertrand Favier & Jennifer A. Byrne, 2020. "Flagging incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical papers: To what extent does the leading publication format impede automatic error detection?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1139-1156, August.
    6. Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Humberto J Debat & Edward Emmott & Steven J Burgess & Benjamin Schwessinger & Zach Hensel, 2019. "On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, February.
    7. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    8. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    9. Mohan, Vijay, 2019. "On the use of blockchain-based mechanisms to tackle academic misconduct," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03871-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.