Dude, whose gene is that? Genetics paper retracted for lack of permission

pbrPlant Biotechnology Reports is retracting a 2009 paper by a group of researchers in South Korea because the authors submitted the article “without the permission” of the owner of a gene used in the study.

The paper abstract is no longer online, though the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends that retraction notices be linked to the retracted article wherever possible. So we can’t even tell you what the paper is about, outside of its title: “T1 transgenic tobacco plants carrying multicopy T-DNAs at the same locus exhibit various expression levels of transgenes.”

Here’s all we’ve got—the retraction notice itself:

The Editors of Plant Biotechnology Reports and the publisher hereby retract the article entitled “T1 transgenic tobacco plants carrying multicopy T-DNAs at the same locus exhibit various expression levels of transgenes” by Min SR, Davarpanah SJ, Park YI, Jeon JH, Moon JS, Liu JR and Jeong WJ, which appeared in the Online First version of Plant Biotech Rep because the authors submitted the article without the permission of the owner of a gene that was mentioned in the article.

We’ve reached out to corresponding author Won Joong Jeong and journal editor, Jang R. Liu of Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology in Korea, for more details. We’ll update if possible.

Hat tip: Rahul Shelake

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

3 thoughts on “Dude, whose gene is that? Genetics paper retracted for lack of permission”

  1. Apparently some confusion about what is being intellectually or commercially owned there. Perhaps it is the unpublished cDNA or a cDNA-containing unpublished vector? Certainly not “a gene”.

  2. The retraction notice should also indicate the exact volume, issue and page numbers of the original paper. The original cannot be traced in the 4 issues of the 2009 volume.

    The contents of 2009 reveal no gaps in the page numbers, so something very odd here…
    http://link.springer.com/journal/11816/3/1/page/1
    pages 1-109
    http://link.springer.com/journal/11816/3/2/page/1
    111-174
    http://link.springer.com/journal/11816/3/3/page/1
    175-266
    http://link.springer.com/journal/11816/3/4/page/1
    267-355

    Is the second last author the current EIC?

    1. The retraction notice refers to the “Online First” version of the paper. It would appear never to have found its way into a paginated volume.
      How recent is the retraction?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *