On 2016 Dec 15, Morten Oksvold commented:

This article has been retracted due to several problematic issues with data duplications.

This case represents an excellent example for how an editorial and review process should NOT be performed:

1. Apparent extensive duplication of data was not detected during the review process.
2. Three issues of apparent duplications were reported to Science by Johannes M Dijkstra June 25th 2015.
3. Dijkstra reported to Science regarding a fourth apparent data duplication August 13th.
4. Science confirmed that they will publish a correction of the reported duplications September 24th.
5. Science published a correction October 23rd 2015.
6. The published correction poorly describes the details of the correction and the general explanation for how the published duplications were made is difficult to understand.<br>
7. The extensive correction was not discussed with the authors' research institutes.
8. Apparent data duplication in the corrected version was reported November 18th.
9. Science published an expression of concern December 10th. Imperial College London investigates the case.
10. Science finally retracted the article one year later (December 10th).
11. The published retraction is only accessible for subscribers.

Please see the full discussion at PubPeer:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/B74CF2D21C4A180A5685A30DC06D29#fb113276

On 2016 Dec 15, Morten Oksvold commented:

This article has been retracted due to several problematic issues with data duplications.

This case represents an excellent example for how an editorial and review process should NOT be performed:

1. Apparent extensive duplication of data was not detected during the review process.
2. Three issues of apparent duplications were reported to Science by Johannes M Dijkstra June 25th 2015.
3. Dijkstra reported to Science regarding a fourth apparent data duplication August 13th.
4. Science confirmed that they will publish a correction of the reported duplications September 24th.
5. Science published a correction October 23rd 2015.
6. The published correction poorly describes the details of the correction and the general explanation for how the published duplications were made is difficult to understand.<br>
7. The extensive correction was not discussed with the authors' research institutes.
8. Apparent data duplication in the corrected version was reported November 18th.
9. Science published an expression of concern December 10th. Imperial College London investigates the case.
10. Science finally retracted the article one year later (December 10th).
11. The published retraction is only accessible for subscribers.

Please see the full discussion at PubPeer:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/B74CF2D21C4A180A5685A30DC06D29#fb113276