About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Bulfone-Paus retraction notice appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

with 4 comments

Silvia Bulfone-Paus

Another retraction notice for a paper by Silvia Bulfone-Paus and colleagues has appeared, this one for a 2007 paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), “Soluble IL-15Rα is generated by alternative splicing or proteolytic cleavage and forms functional complexes with Il-15.”

This is the sixth retraction notice of a promised 12 in several journals. The original paper has been cited 37 times,  according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Some of the notices have gone into great detail about what was wrong with the original papers, and journals have even allowed the team to declare that some of the results had been replicated. One simply said there had been misconduct.

Then there’s this one:

This article has been withdrawn by the authors.

That certainly clears things right up.

We’ve sent a message to the editor of the JBC — whom, we should note, has only been in office since early December, so inherited this retraction — and will update if we hear back.

Hat tip: Beatrice Mueller and Karin Wiebauer

About these ads

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Honestly, I would not want to be in Bulfone-Paus’ position right now.

    BTC

    February 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm

  2. What do you mean, in her position? From where I’m sitting, she seems to be knee-deep in this one. Perhaps I’m missing something…

    LNV

    February 15, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    • I’m assuming she had no idea of what was going on in her lab. Until we know the whole story, I’m giving her a rather large benefit of the doubt by overlooking the fact she should have had the oversight to catch this type of continued behavior.

      BTC

      February 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm

  3. I find it hard to believe that this fraud happened without Bulfone-Paus’s consent; with her as first author, it even originated from her. As for later manuscripts, I firmly stand for the opinion that a group leader who cannot or does not want to notice fraud is almost as bad as one who makes his people commit such an act and therefore is not worthy to receive any grant money or even any salary. Science puts great responsibility on the shoulders of scientists, in addition to all the hardships of the profession. Why waste time and money on characters who only want to do science (or rather science fiction) to their own benefit AND resort to criminal acts in the process which harm science and society by a great deal? I regularly see hard-working and honest folks quit their university career simply because there are not enough jobs, because it is too frustrating to wade through all those fake claims in the literature that push back the publication of the truth, and because many fraudsters yield considerable power. Once you are a professor, it is very unlikely that you have to suffer adequate personal consequences in cases of fraud. Phew, I’m sorry about the long rant.

    tk

    February 16, 2011 at 3:27 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33,742 other followers

%d bloggers like this: