On 2016 Aug 24, M Mangan commented:

After more than a year, with extensive back-and-forth with the journal and the authors, we were refused access to the data from this research.

This is disappointing, of course. Although the journal did later make a statement to clarify some of the erroneous methods desciption (as a comment on the paper's site), they did not require fixes to the publication. "The reference to triplicates in the Methods section of the article refers to the sampling and not to the measurements."

Further, in the correspondance, the authors admitted that they did not test for glufosinate--despite noting that they tested for the presence of crops with the resistance to this herbicide. So they cannot claim that their testing for herbicides was complete and claims of their detection of herbicides is flawed. If you ignore one of them, your claims of what is at the highest levels is of little value. Again, the journal did not require the authors to address this error.

Statistical issues and flawed design should make the reader wary of the work within and the subsequent claims and conclusions.

On 2015 Oct 08, M Mangan commented:

In apparent violation of PLOS policy, the authors of this paper refuse to provide the data underlying the claims for this work.

This work has also been used in an attempt to influence regulatory policy from government agencies. However, citing many flaws of the work, including incomplete reporting of the data, regulators have dismissed the claims made.

See: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4258

On 2015 Oct 08, M Mangan commented:

In apparent violation of PLOS policy, the authors of this paper refuse to provide the data underlying the claims for this work.

This work has also been used in an attempt to influence regulatory policy from government agencies. However, citing many flaws of the work, including incomplete reporting of the data, regulators have dismissed the claims made.

See: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4258

On 2016 Aug 24, M Mangan commented:

After more than a year, with extensive back-and-forth with the journal and the authors, we were refused access to the data from this research.

This is disappointing, of course. Although the journal did later make a statement to clarify some of the erroneous methods desciption (as a comment on the paper's site), they did not require fixes to the publication. "The reference to triplicates in the Methods section of the article refers to the sampling and not to the measurements."

Further, in the correspondance, the authors admitted that they did not test for glufosinate--despite noting that they tested for the presence of crops with the resistance to this herbicide. So they cannot claim that their testing for herbicides was complete and claims of their detection of herbicides is flawed. If you ignore one of them, your claims of what is at the highest levels is of little value. Again, the journal did not require the authors to address this error.

Statistical issues and flawed design should make the reader wary of the work within and the subsequent claims and conclusions.