Second paper from lab of Nobel Prize winner to be retracted
Thomas Südhof's 2017 paper will be retracted due to significant image abnormalities, despite its conclusions remaining intact. This marks his second retraction, highlighting ongoing challenges in scientific publishing.
Read original article
A 2017 paper from Thomas Südhof's lab at Stanford University is set to be retracted due to significant image abnormalities. The paper, titled "Conditional deletion of all neurexins defines diversity of essential synaptic organizer functions for neurexins," has been cited over 150 times. Following a correction in May regarding an inadvertent panel duplication, further scrutiny on PubPeer led to the discovery of additional issues, including major image duplications that could not be explained by benign reasons. Despite the quantitative analyses and conclusions of the paper remaining intact, Südhof stated that the extent of the problems warranted a retraction. Lulu Y. Chen, the paper's first author, expressed disagreement with the retraction decision but acknowledged Südhof's reasoning. This incident marks the second retraction for Südhof, a Nobel Prize winner, who previously retracted a 2023 study after similar concerns were raised. The case highlights ongoing challenges in scientific publishing, particularly regarding image integrity, and reflects a broader trend of retractions among prominent researchers.
- Thomas Südhof's 2017 paper will be retracted due to significant image abnormalities.
- The paper has been cited over 150 times and was previously corrected for a panel duplication.
- Further analysis revealed major issues that could not be explained by benign reasons.
- Lulu Y. Chen, the first author, disagrees with the retraction but understands the decision.
- This is Südhof's second retraction, following a similar incident earlier in 2024.
Related
Journal retracts all 23 articles in special issue
A journal retracted 23 articles from a special issue due to compromised peer review. Guest editor Abbas Mardani didn't comment. Authors criticized lack of transparency and faced consequences. Publisher Springer mentioned ongoing investigations.
Elsevier withdraws plagiarized paper after author calls journal out on LinkedIn
Elsevier retracted a plagiarized paper titled "Optimizing smart building energy systems" after Sadrizadeh exposed copied data. Editor-in-chief investigated and withdrew the paper due to possible figure manipulation. Lead author did not comment.
When scientific citations go rogue: Uncovering 'sneaked references'
Researchers discovered "sneaked references," a new academic fraud involving adding extra references to boost citation counts. This manipulation distorts research visibility. Recommendations include rigorous verification and transparency in managing citations.
You got a null result. Will anyone publish it?
Researchers struggle to publish null or negative results, leading to bias favoring positive findings. Initiatives like registered reports aim to enhance transparency, but challenges persist in academia's culture. Efforts to encourage reporting null results continue, aiming to improve research integrity.
The Academic Culture of Fraud
In 2006, Sylvain Lesné's Alzheimer’s research faced retraction due to manipulated images, highlighting academic fraud issues. Similar cases reveal a troubling trend of inadequate accountability in research institutions.
0 commentsRelated
Journal retracts all 23 articles in special issue
A journal retracted 23 articles from a special issue due to compromised peer review. Guest editor Abbas Mardani didn't comment. Authors criticized lack of transparency and faced consequences. Publisher Springer mentioned ongoing investigations.
Elsevier withdraws plagiarized paper after author calls journal out on LinkedIn
Elsevier retracted a plagiarized paper titled "Optimizing smart building energy systems" after Sadrizadeh exposed copied data. Editor-in-chief investigated and withdrew the paper due to possible figure manipulation. Lead author did not comment.
When scientific citations go rogue: Uncovering 'sneaked references'
Researchers discovered "sneaked references," a new academic fraud involving adding extra references to boost citation counts. This manipulation distorts research visibility. Recommendations include rigorous verification and transparency in managing citations.
You got a null result. Will anyone publish it?
Researchers struggle to publish null or negative results, leading to bias favoring positive findings. Initiatives like registered reports aim to enhance transparency, but challenges persist in academia's culture. Efforts to encourage reporting null results continue, aiming to improve research integrity.
The Academic Culture of Fraud
In 2006, Sylvain Lesné's Alzheimer’s research faced retraction due to manipulated images, highlighting academic fraud issues. Similar cases reveal a troubling trend of inadequate accountability in research institutions.