2 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. On 2017 Jul 28, Morten Oksvold commented:

      In this article the authors cite Deleris, A. et al. Hierarchical action and inhibition of plant Dicer-like proteins in antiviral defense. Science 313, 68–71 (2006) (reference number 7).

      This article represents one of the articles that supposed to be retracted (see quote from the report below):

      From the investigation report: "Although it is obviously the journal's prerogative, the former (category 2) papers, particularly those containing well documented intentional manipulations (PLoS Pathogens 2013 9:e1003435; Plant Cell 2004 16: 1235; Science 2006 313: 68; PNAS 2006 103: 19593 and EMBO J 2010 29: 1699), should be retracted through OV's requests as being non-factual, irrespectively of whether the reported observations have been reproduced by others."

      Link to full report here: https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/news/medienmitteilungen/2015/PDF/untersuchungsbericht/Report_of_ETH_Commission_Voinnet.pdf

      I find it problematic that Nature Plants accepts this kind of practice, by apparently legitimating well documented intentional manipulations as facts.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.

  2. Feb 2018
    1. On 2017 Jul 28, Morten Oksvold commented:

      In this article the authors cite Deleris, A. et al. Hierarchical action and inhibition of plant Dicer-like proteins in antiviral defense. Science 313, 68–71 (2006) (reference number 7).

      This article represents one of the articles that supposed to be retracted (see quote from the report below):

      From the investigation report: "Although it is obviously the journal's prerogative, the former (category 2) papers, particularly those containing well documented intentional manipulations (PLoS Pathogens 2013 9:e1003435; Plant Cell 2004 16: 1235; Science 2006 313: 68; PNAS 2006 103: 19593 and EMBO J 2010 29: 1699), should be retracted through OV's requests as being non-factual, irrespectively of whether the reported observations have been reproduced by others."

      Link to full report here: https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/news/medienmitteilungen/2015/PDF/untersuchungsbericht/Report_of_ETH_Commission_Voinnet.pdf

      I find it problematic that Nature Plants accepts this kind of practice, by apparently legitimating well documented intentional manipulations as facts.


      This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.