Newcastle University is standing behind its professor whose stem cell group had a paper retracted after a plagiarism charge. The paper, which described how sperm-like cells could be derived from human embryonic stem cells, was published online on 8 July by Stem Cells and Development. As ScienceInsider reported on Thursday, the journal’s editor, Graham Parker, retracted the paper on 21 July after it was discovered that several paragraphs in the introduction had been copied, without attribution, from a 2007 review article.
The paper’s corresponding author, Karim Nayernia, told ScienceInsider that the copied text was part of an old version of the paper, which the first author, a postdoc named Jae Ho Lee, mistakenly submitted. Nayernia says that as soon as he was made aware of the problem he sent Parker the correct version, without the copied text. He says that because the paper was published online before copy editing or proofreading, he and his colleagues did not realize their mistake. Nayernia says he initially received word that the journal had accepted the new draft.
Parker says, however, that “the available evidence does not substantiate the claim” of an accidental submission of the wrong manuscript. Therefore, he says, he decided to retract the paper, despite requests from Nayernia and Newcastle University to reconsider.
Newcastle University accepts Nayernia’s explanation. Late Tuesday, it released the following statement:
Newcastle University and the NorthEast England Stem Cell Institute are aware that the research paper "Derivation of Human Sperm from Embryonic Stem Cells" by a group led by Professor Karim Nayernia has been withdrawn from the academic journal Stem Cells and Development.
The paper has been peer-reviewed by the journal. No questions have been raised about the science conducted or the conclusions of the research.
The withdrawal relates to text in the introduction of an old version of the paper that was submitted in error. The text was copied without attribution to its original author by a research associate, Dr Jae Ho Lee who has since left the University. He has apologised to the authors for his mistake and the name of Dr Lee has been removed from the first authorship.
It should be noted that the correct version of the manuscript, upon the request of the journal's editor, had been immediately submitted to the journal during the process of proof reading.
The group now intends to submit the paper to another peer-reviewed academic journal.
The University will be further examining the supervision of research associates in the process of submission to an academic journal.
—Gretchen Vogel
we don’t know our future income status but we want protection, and therefore we select a cheap and affordable one to begin with,
I think Editor Parker has done a right thing for science even though his act was largely or on the surface based on an ethical ground. Nowadays there have been so many hypes in science especially in the field of stem cell research. There are also severe erosions in the ethics of scientific research where citation misconduct and even credit robbery are both well tolerated and even strongly protected by some journals especially the very "top" journals. As Editor-in-Chief of Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz), I have published many high-level misconduct cases, mostly happened in journals or, more correctly, magazines, with artificially inflated impact factors which are even contributed significantly by more citations to their retracted papers. I just wish those editors who have published so many hypes and supported so many credit robberies should learn from Dr. Parker. If anyone even dares to sue Editor Parker and/or SCD for "illegal action", go ahead! Make my day! Let us see who in the end will take the legal consequences.
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 editor with serious legal consequences for him. I think Newcastle University should very soon start prosecuting the misconduct committed by Dr Parker, the journal 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.
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. 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.
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 correct proof.