A paper that made international headlines earlier this month is causing headaches for its authors. Late last week several German media outlets reported that the paper, which claimed to demonstrate how sperm could be made from human embryonic stem cells, had been retracted following charges of plagiarism. But the journal that published the paper hadn’t made any formal announcement until last night.
The paper, published online by Stem Cells and Development on 8 July with Karim Nayernia of Newcastle University in the United Kingdom as the corresponding author, had already received some criticism from other experts; Dr Allan Pacey of the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, for example, was quoted by The Independent as saying: "As a sperm biologist of 20 years' experience, I am unconvinced from the data presented in this paper that the cells produced ... can be accurately called 'Spermatozoa.' "
The paper’s problems soon got much worse. Graham Parker, editor-in-chief of Stem Cells and Development, told ScienceInsider that he received an email on 10 July from the editors of another journal, Biology of Reproduction, claiming that two paragraphs from Nayernia paper’s introduction were copied without attribution from a 2007 review article by Makoto Nagano of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, that was published in their journal. Surprisingly, Parker says, those introductory paragraphs describe previous work done by the authors of the new paper, raising questions about why such a passage would be plagiarized. Parker emailed Nayernia and the other paper’s authors asking for an explanation. “My hope was that a genuine mistake had occurred,” Parker said in an email to ScienceInsider.
Parker says Nayernia told him the offending text was inserted by a postdoctoral fellow. But Parker says the explanation he received was not consistent with an innocent mistake. “Once I had established that the suggested reason for the text's inclusion was not being substantiated I decided to retract the paper” on 21 July, Parker says.
Nayernia has not yet responded to ScienceInsider’s queries on the matter. But German media quote him saying he hopes to publish the paper in Stem Cells and Development with a revised introduction.
The paper’s final fate is apparently still in flux. Another coauthor, Wolfgang Engel of the University of Goettingen in Germany, says that the data in the paper had not been questioned and he thought the journal had accepted the revised introduction.
Parker, however, told ScienceInsider that his decision was final. A retraction statement was posted last night appended to the online version of the paper.
—Gretchen Vogel
ta should not be published in even Stem Cell of Development which has low standards. Both the authors and the publisher reserve these mes
1. To those who's "scientific knowledge" can only be measured by impact factors (IF), please read SCD's publication "iPS Cells: a More Critical Review" (17:391-398, 2008) and compare it with publications in some high-IF journals such as CNS. Which journal has published correct understanding on iPS cells? If you realize that IF does not reflect the quality of a journal or at least its publications and some high-IF journals are playing an IF scamming, then read ground-breaking discoveries first published in some IF-free journals such as Logical Biology and Pioneer collectively located at http://im1.biz. Then ask yourself, you are actually blinded by some high-IF journals regarding the truth on some very important scientific issues.
Everything with this paper was done wrong. I have both texts, there is plagiarism in literature review. But this should not be a reason for retraction, although formally it is. The author who did copy and paste should have been publicly reprimanded. It was a totally infantile thing to do. Yet, the paper, if scientifically sound, could be published. Now, you cannot even get it on the web. Furthermore, the story got reported by all news agencies and I see that Elizabeth Wager, the Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics, says the paper is retracted correctly. Now, it's the same Committee that a week ago made every effort to leave an article that plagiarises my PhD research untouched, making falsification of the academic record and the record of science in the journal permanent. You must see this:
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/committee.htm
The fraud in science has really no limits.
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 competitions!
Ya, I think Dr Nayernia must have tried to publish in other high impact journals and failed to get published because of the poor quality of data. In essence, the 'great master piece of the early century' should not be published in any journal if it has such a 'great master piece' of plagiarism.
We heard that the journal editor "Dr parker" was under heavy pressure by the jealous competitors 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 of the early century should be send to such a weak journal. 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.
We heard that the journal editor "Dr parker" was under heavy pressure by the jealous competitors 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 of the early century should be send to such a weak journal. 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.
FYI, there are more than two pragraphs plagiarized from Nagano review, that is, copied word to word, if you really read the published manuscript. What are the authors thinking? Not enough time to read or summarize previous works in the field? What a shame!
Beside, the poor quality of the data should not be published in even Stem Cell of Development which has low standards. Both the authors and the publisher reserve these mess, because their primary goal is not good science, but good publicity.
I can not believe it!!!!Does the journal behave the same if this publication was submitted from Harvard?!
There's one law for the rich and another for the poor!
We heard that Dr. Parker has ignored the correct version of the manuscript submitted to this journal and this is against the retraction and withdarwal policy of the journal and Mary Ann Lieberty publisher!
Why? Why? Why Porf. Nayernia ? Why you are publishing i a Journal which 4 of 10 papers published in this Journal are from Dr. Parker!!!!!!
Please, Please, let this journal for publication of Dr. Parker!!! You can publish in much much better journal!!!
Yours Alexandra
I am asking Prof. Nayernia why he is submitting his excellent works to such chintzy journal????
What is Prof. Nayernia's comment on this?
Is it true that Journal has ingored the correct version of the manuscript!!!
This nice paper was retracted only because of a sentence in the introduction, who believes this? This was a political decision form the journal and not a scientific !