Does a new retraction suggest a glimmer of hope for transparency at the Journal of Neuroscience?

Believe it or not, we look for policies to praise here at Retraction Watch HQ, especially if they mark a change from approaches that we and others have criticized. So we were heartened to read this retraction notice in The Journal of Neuroscience for “Lmx1b-Controlled Isthmic Organizer Is Essential for Development of Midbrain Dopaminergic Neurons:”

The Journal of Neuroscience has received a report describing an investigation by the Shanghai Institute of Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, which found major data misrepresentation in the article by Guo et al. Because the results cannot be considered reliable, The Journal is retracting the paper.

The study has been cited five times since it was published in 2008, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s some background on why we thought we’d have something to praise, from a Nature feature this week on retractions:

This summer, for example, Retraction Watch criticized the Journal of Neuroscience for a pair of identical retraction notices it published on 8 June: “At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted.”

But the journal’s editor-in-chief, neuroscientist John Maunsell of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, argues that such obscurity is often the most responsible course to take. “My feeling is that there are far fewer retractions than there should be,” says Maunsell, who adds that he has conducted 79 ethics investigations in more than 3 years at the journal — 1 every 2–3 weeks. But “authors are reluctant to retract papers”, he says, “and anything we put up in the way of a barrier or disincentive is a bad thing. If authors are happier posting retractions without extra information, I’d rather see that retraction go through than provide any discouragement.”

From 30,000 feet, we can see his point — sort of. It’s encouraging a certain kind of transparency, as we wrote in June about an exchange with Maunsell. But as we also noted, it’s misguided. The problem is that Maunsell thinks his journal is telling its readers the difference between honest error and fraud, according to his response to comment about the new retraction:

As I explained in our previous correspondence, The Journal of Neuroscience distinguishes retractions based on inappropriate conduct from those arising from honest errors.  Retractions based on findings of inappropriate conduct are clearly indicated in the published retraction.

We disagree. We completely fail to see how “At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted” suggests honest error. At the very least, why not say “”At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted because of an honest error?”

But more to the point, it’s become pretty clear that the reason for one of the retractions whose notices we criticized in June wasn’t honest error. Retraction Watch readers pointed us almost immediately to news of an investigation into Kenji Okajima’s lab, which did the work. Still, even now that we know there’s an investigation, and they’ve retracted a paper in another journal, claiming that the errant figure was a placeholder — really — the Journal of Neuroscience notice hasn’t been changed. (It’s also behind a paywall.) 

That doesn’t “[distinguish] retractions based on inappropriate conduct from those arising from honest errors.” What it may do instead, suggested Committee on Publication Ethics chair Liz Wager in a comment in June, is something quite troubling: 

I have heard of authors seeking to retract papers just BEFORE the results of an investigation were published to ensure that the retraction didn’t mention the misconduct. For this reason the COPE guidelines recommend that editors wait for the results of investigations (and maybe publish an Expression of Concern in the interim). And, no matter who retracts the paper, we recommend that the reason should be stated — largely to protect innocent authors who do the right thing and retract papers when they discover honest errors, who should be encouraged.

In other words, if “at the request of the authors” is supposed to be understood by Journal of Neuroscience readers as “because of honest error,” then the Okajima et al retraction is an abuse.

Don’t worry, though, we’ll keep looking for policies to praise. Send them along as you see them.