Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Catching up: PLoS Pathogens apologizes for retracting XMRV-prostate cancer paper before contacting a corresponding author

with 3 comments

Last week was a bit of a whirlwind in Retraction Land, thanks to a big study of retractions in PNAS and a lot of resulting press coverage. So we didn’t have a chance to update readers on an ongoing story and discussion involving the PLoS journals.

As ScienceInsider was first to report last week, the editor of PLoS Pathogens, Kasturi Haldar, has now apologized for retracting a paper allegedly showing a link between the XMRV virus and prostate cancer without having contacted the second of two corresponding authors. Retraction Watch readers may recall that Haldar told us on September 19:

The authors were contacted by email on August 27th regarding our decision, and were asked to comment on the retraction text and suggest changes. We did not receive a reply, and decided to move forward with the retraction in conjunction with the PLOS ONE publication yesterday, September 18th.

Here’s part of Haldar’s blog post on the matter, posted on September 28:

PLOS Pathogens communicates with authors through the corresponding author. This is our standard practice. We invited commentary through the corresponding author with whom we communicated during manuscript submission and review. The email address was and is current: the individual is an advisory member of our editorial board. We have apologized for not contacting the second corresponding author. Our expectation was that the first would discharge responsibilities to all remaining authors. We have since corresponded with all authors.

ScienceInsider reported that the Robert Silverman, the corresponding author who wasn’t contacted by the journal, thought a correction would have been enough, while Joe DeRisi, the other corresponding author, felt differently:

On Saturday, DeRisi posted a response to the retraction, in which he said he agreed with it. But whether he received the 27 August e-mail, and if so, why he failed to respond or to alert his co-authors, remains unclear. (DeRisi did not respond to multiple emails and voice messages from ScienceInsider.) Silverman says he cannot comment on DeRisi’s inaction; “Suffice it to say we have not been in contact for a long time,” he says. As to the journal’s apology, “I accept it, and I really appreciate it,” he says.

The discussion over the retraction had already prompted Haldar and PLoS editorial director for medicine Virginia Barbour to write a post explaining their retraction policy. Some of the language in that post drew heavy criticism from Retraction Watch readers and others, to which Barbour replied saying one particular phrase — “If a paper’s major conclusions are shown to be wrong we will retract the paper” — has been “pulled out of the blog and over/misinterpreted.” In the second half of the September 28 blog post, Barbour reiterates that PLoS is “not making a new policy here.”

Related: Ivan and Barbour discuss retractions with Nature’s Richard van Noorden on the BBC’s Material World

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 8th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

  • markbul October 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    “Barbour replied saying one particular phrase — “If a paper’s major conclusions are shown to be wrong we will retract the paper” — has been “pulled out of the blog and over/misinterpreted.”

    ‘Who are you gonna believe, baby – me, or your lyin’ eyes?’

    First rule of holes – when you’re in one, put down the damn shovel.

    • JBL October 9, 2012 at 11:38 am

      Sorry, but this comment makes no sense. (I guess this shouldn’t be surprising, given your other comments here.) If the person in charge of a policy says “we’re not changing our policy”, you should believe that person unless they’ve *done something* that indicates a change in policy. That they earlier said something that seemed to indicate a change in policy indicates that they are not communicating very well, but until they actually *take actions* that are out-of-line with the old policy, there is no evidence of the form that would warrant your first cliche.

      Similarly, your second cliche is misapplied in a nonsensical way: if a person does two unrelated things you think are bad, this is not an instance of “keeping digging” — the whole point of the cliche is that you should stop doing *the same thing* that got you in the hole in the first place, not completely unrelated things.

      Please try to not make such garbage posts.

  • Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic) October 9, 2012 at 2:59 am

    XMRV may not cause any diseases but it’s sparked a series of fascinating debates over 21st century science.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Email address