Streisand Effect meets tough editors as journal retracts already-corrected paper by Rui Curi
Rui Curi — the Brazilian scientist who threatened to sue the now-shuttered Science-Fraud.org site for criticizing his work — has rung up his second retraction, this one for a paper that he corrected earlier this year.
Here’s the Journal of Endocrinology notice, whose headers and language are a bit confusing, understandably, because it is retracting two things, a correction and the original paper:
Erratum: Non-esterified fatty acids and human lymphocyte death: a mechanism that involves calcium release and oxidative stress
Rosemari Otton, Danielly Oliveira da Silva, Thais Regina Campoio, Leonardo R Silveira, Maria Oliveira de Souza, Elaine Hatanaka and Rui Curi
Journal of Endocrinology March 2013 216:3.
The above erratum has been retracted by the journal.
The erratum has been retracted for the following reasons:
Figure 7C of the above published article contains a blot labeled as showing Bid immunoreactivity in the middle lane that is substantially similar to the 24 h fasting blot (also middle lane) from Fig. 5B in Juliana PIRES, Rui CURI and Rosemari OTTON Induction of apoptosis in rat lymphocytes by starvation. Clinical Science (2007) 112, 59–67 (doi:10.1042/CS20060212), where it is labeled as Bax immunostaining.
The journal’s ethical guidelines state that authors must ‘not submit the same or substantially similar material (data or text) as contained in any article, including review articles, that the author(s) have published previously’.
The authors have responded to these concerns. The journal has reviewed the response supplied by the authors but has decided that, as the data concerned cannot be substantiated and in view of the breach of the journal’s ethical guidelines, the article should be retracted.
We apologise to the editors of Clinical Science and to our readers.
The study has been cited 14 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. It’s not the first retracted correction we’ve seen.
We applaud the editors of the JOE taking a tough stance instead of just passing along whatever the authors wanted to say. Unfortunately, that kind of toughness still requires praise, since it’s not always practiced. So we’d urge the editors to remove the paywall — which is what COPE guidelines recommend anyway.
In the meantime, we’ll refer Professor Curi to the Wikipedia entry for the Streisand Effect.
Hat tip: Buster