About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Feeling sheepish: Another retraction for Lemus, of study of whether livestock can spread chlamydia to birds

with 3 comments

Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher whose work has been the subject of a misconduct inquiry, has another retraction for his CV. It’s his third, according to our count.

The newest retraction is from PLoS ONE:

Juan A. Fargallo, Pablo Vergara, Deseada Parejo and Eva Banda, as co-authors of the article published in PLOS ONE (2010) titled “Natural Cross Chlamydial Infection between Livestock and Free-Living Bird Species”, request the retraction of this publication.

The Ethics Committee of the Spanish Superior Council of Scientific Research (CSIC) has carried out an investigation in relation to concerns about potential scientific misconduct by Jesús A. Lemus, who was also a co-author of this article. The investigation has questioned the validity of the laboratory analyses conducted by Dr. Lemus in relation to this study, and was unable to establish at which laboratories the analyses were conducted.

Specifically, the authors have been unable to verify the validity of the Chlamydophila analyses for sheep abortions, sheep faeces, sheep stable dust, kestrel nest dust and insects. There are also concerns about the validity of the results obtained for the Chlamydophila serovar characterization, genetic diversity and MSLT analyses for Chamydophila. As a result, the authors wish to retract the article.

The paper, which has been cited 12 times, according to Google Scholar, is Lemus’s second PLoS ONE retraction. The other was in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 12, 2012 at 8:30 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. one hast to wonder… even though the experiments were performed by the majority of the authors (according to the “Contributions” section of the paper) they now are not able to reproduce any of their findings? If this is due to misconduct of one person, what exactly did the other authors do when performing the experiments?


    October 12, 2012 at 9:47 am

    • They said: do it.

      Sylvain Bernès

      October 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    • If the experiments mentioned in the retraction cover all of the paper’s experiments, this is a very valid question. But isn’t it possible that these represent only the portion in which Lemus was involved?


      October 15, 2012 at 5:15 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,846 other followers

%d bloggers like this: