Clinical Cancer Research is retracting a paper on the immunosuppressive effects of glioma due to “evidence of duplicate and/or redundant publication.”
According to the retraction notice, the 2010 paper bore exceeding similarities to another one published by the same group of researchers six days prior. That second paper appeared in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, which – like Clinical Cancer Research — is published by the American Association for Cancer Research. Apparently, a reader tipped off the AACR about the similarity.
The corresponding author on both papers, however, has objected to the decision:
We do not agree with the decision regarding the retraction of the Clinical Cancer Research (CCR) Article based on the interpretation of duplication.
Here’s the notice:
The article entitled “Glioma-Associated Cancer-Initiating Cells Induce Immunosuppression,” which was published in the January 15, 2010, issue of Clinical Cancer Research [CCR (1)], is being retracted at the request of the AACR Publications Department and the CCR Editor-in-Chief. A reader presented evidence of duplicate and/or redundant publication in two articles by Wei and colleagues published in two AACR journals. The articles in question, “Glioblastoma Cancer-Initiating Cells Inhibit T-cell Proliferation and Effector Responses by the Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription 3 Pathway” (2) and “Glioma-Associated Cancer-Initiating Cells Induce Immunosuppression,” were published, respectively, in the January 2010 issue of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics and the January 15, 2010, issue of CCR. The editors of both journals and AACR Publications Department members investigated the matter further. We found that identical text was presented in the Materials and Methods and Results sections of both articles. In addition, the submission of these papers was nearly simultaneous, and neither paper made reference to the existence of the other. We contacted the corresponding author of the study to express our concerns, and, after several rounds of correspondence, suggested she notify her institution’s Office of Research Integrity (or comparable authority). After extensive review of the responses to our queries from the author and representatives from her institution’s Office of Research Integrity, we have determined that this is a case of redundant and/or duplicate publication as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity standards (http://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-14).
It is our responsibility to correct the published record. In cases of redundant and/or duplicate publication, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends retraction of the redundant and/or duplicate article. Thus, the article entitled “Glioma-Associated Cancer-Initiating Cells Induce Immunosuppression,” which was published online in CCR on January 12, 2010, will be retracted; the article entitled “Glioblastoma Cancer-Initiating Cells Inhibit T-cell Proliferation and Effector Responses by the Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription 3 Pathway,” which was published online in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics on January 6, 2010, will remain unchanged. A copy of this notice was sent to the authors.
However, Amy Heimberger at MD Anderson Cancer Center, the corresponding author on both papers, insists that the retraction was not warranted. She claims that the duplication simply represented “a baseline immunological phenotypic and functional characterization of the glioma cancer stem cells” required for each study:
We do not agree with the decision regarding the retraction of the Clinical Cancer Research (CCR) Article based on the interpretation of duplication. For the CCR article the theme was focused on how differentiation effects the immune suppression of the glioma cancer stem cell. In contrast, in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics (MCT) article, the effects of the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 on the biology of the glioma cancer stem cell was probed. Prior to either of these works, the immune suppressive properties of glioma cancer stems cells had not been described. In order to develop either of the aforementioned key concepts, a baseline immunological phenotypic and functional characterization of the glioma cancer stem cells was necessary in order to proceed; thereafter the manuscripts diverge. More specifically, in the CCR article there is an extensive and comprehensive characterization of how the astrocytes and glioma cell lines impact T cell proliferation, apoptosis and Treg induction; the biological role of B7-H1 relative to Tregs was investigated; the contribution of galectin 3 in T cell apoptosis is probed; and the effects of differentiation on this immune suppression was evaluated. In contrast, in the MCT article, the effects of reversing glioma cancer stem cell immune suppression with an siRNA targeting STAT3 was evaluated; the effects of a small molecule inhibitor, WP1066, on immune suppression was determined; and immune cytokine profiling was performed. Both manuscripts make important and distinct contributions to the field that is further supported by the lack of overlap of associated citations. The manuscripts were submitted simultaneously and accepted within the same time frame and thus the reason why they did not cross reference each other.
The retracted paper has been cited 101 times, according to Thompson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Kenneth Anderson, the journal’s editor-in-chief, hasn’t replied to our request for comment, but we’ll update if he does.
Hat tip: William E. Gooding
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.
Quite a lot of similarities in the two papers.
Especially interesting are the discussion sections in both papers:
Clinical Cancer Research:
> The immunologic properties of human cancer-initiating cells have not been defined previously, and to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that these cells mediate many of the key features of immunosuppression and it explains a possible mechanism for resistance to immunotherapy in the clinic.
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics:
> The immunologic properties of human cancer-initiating cells have not been defined previously, and to our knowledge, this is the first study to show that these cells mediate many of the key features of immunosuppression and suggests a possible mechanism for resistance to immunotherapy.
The retraction notice is clear, and complete. A good example.
Why does In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology – Plant not apply the COPE retraction criteria in a similar way?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11627-015-9689-6
Let’s see: “Materials and Methods”– identical. Same material, same method. “Results”– identical. Same results. So the experiment described in both papers is the same. The rest of the paper, even if it is different (which I don’t know because I’m too lazy to look into it), is just window dressing. You can discuss it all you want, you can give all the background material you want, but the bottom line is that both papers describe the same experiment.
This is worse than salami-slicing of your data. It’s creating two papers from the same experiment.
Actually, this retraction notice is NOT correct in stating: “this is a case of redundant and/or duplicate publication as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity standards (http://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-14).”
If you follow the link given, it goes to one part of a series on plagiarism that was all written by a St. Johns University professor who is NOT part of ORI, and it is accompanied by an ORI Disclaimer.: The series begins with this title and introduction, making that origin clear.
“Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing, by Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
“Please send any questions, comments, or suggestions to Miguel Roig, Ph.D.
“In recognizing the importance of educating aspiring scientists in the responsible
conduct of research (RCR), the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), began sponsoring in
2002 the creation of instructional resources to address this pressing need. The present
guide on avoiding plagiarism and other inappropriate writing practices was created, in part,
to meet this need. Its purpose is to help students, as well as professionals, identify and
prevent such practices and to develop an awareness of ethical writing. This guide is one of
the many products stemming from ORI’s educational initiatives in the RCR.”
Indeed, ORI’s definition of research misconduct includes “plagiarism” (publishing others work as one’s own) but does NOT include under research misconduct any “redundant / duplicate publication” of one’s own work.
Alan, to simplify what you are trying to say, are you stating that ORI does NOT consider “self-plagiarism”, or the duplication of one’s own work, as research misconduct? With work, I mean, text, data and tables?
Right. They lie outside the ORI definition.
‘Clarification’ and others interested in this thread should take a look at the following quote from John Dahlberg, Director, Division of Investigative Oversight, ORI.
“ORI often receives allegations of plagiarism that involve efforts by scientists to publish the same data in more than one journal article. Assuming that the duplicated figures represent the same experiment and are labeled the same in both cases (if not, possible falsification of data makes the allegation significantly more serious), this so-called “selfplagiarism” does not meet the PHS research misconduct standard. However, once again, ORI notes that this behavior violates the rules of most journals and is considered inappropriate by most institutions. In these cases, ORI will notify the institution(s) from which the duplicate publications/grants originated, being careful to note that ORI had no direct interest in the matter” (page 4, http://ori.hhs.gov/images/ddblock/vol15_no4.pdf).
FWIW, I am in the process of revising the plagiarism module referenced by the retraction notice and by Alan. And, yes, as Alan points out, I have never been nor am I presently part of ORI.