*Savaskan and Nitsch, forced to retract FASEB J paper, correct Cell study with duplicated figure
In August, we wrote about the complicated case of a paper retracted from FASEB Journal that had originally been slated for a correction instead. There had been allegations of misconduct by one of the authors, Nicolai E. Savaskan, and the key parts of the retraction notice for the paper were as follows:
A well-recognized and top-class fact ﬁnding commission concluded that the publication contains gross ﬂaws. A key ﬁgure (Figure 14) and the conclusions drawn from it could not be underlined with the corresponding primary data.
Savaskan told us at the time that FASEB Journal had agreed to a correction of the figure in question, but ended up retracting the paper after receiving a letter from Annette Gruters-Kieslich at Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin, where the work was done. We didn’t get much of an answer from FASEB Journal about why they changed their minds.
*Since understanding why one paper warrants a correction and another gets retracted is important for us at Retraction Watch, a correction of a 2009 Cell paper by a group that included Savaskan and his FASEB J c0-author Robert Nitsch caught our eye. The correction for “Synaptic PRG-1 Modulates Excitatory Transmission via Lipid Phosphate-Mediated Signaling” — a paper cited nine times so far, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge – ran in the September 16, 2011 issue of Cell:
It has been brought to our attention that, in Figure 2C of the article above, the in vivo recordings for P22 PRG-1 KO mice are identical. Upon re-examination of the original recordings, we found that the recording from the right hemisphere was mistakenly used to also represent the recording from the left hemisphere. All in vivo recordings and related figures were made by Sebastian Schuchmann.
The corrected figure with the appropriate recording for the left hemisphere is now presented below. This error was exclusive to P22 of Figure 2C and does not affect the article beyond Figure 2C, neither the original data underlying Figure 2C nor the description in the Results section or the conclusions resulting from these data. We apologize for the mistake and for any inconvenience caused to the readers, and we thank the alert reader who discovered the error.
So why was one paper retracted, while the other was corrected? Although both involve figure errors, the details seem different. We asked Cell for their rationale. Senior deputy editor Elena Porro tells Retraction Watch:
After editorial consideration of the information that we had received about the 2009 Cell paper, we decided that an Erratum to correct the panel was the appropriate course of action. The outcomes for the FASEB and Cell papers are based on different circumstances and data. We cannot speculate on FASEB’s decision to retract a paper they published as we do not know any of the particulars of that situation.
Clearly, the case remains complex and we suspect there will be more news about it. We’ll stay on top of it.
Update, 12:30 p.m. Eastern, 9/29/11: Title and sentence with asterisk changed to clarify which authors were shared between the two papers.
Hat tip: Commenter scotus