A 2010 paper on plant fungus has been retracted after a comment on PubPeer revealed that a study image had been flipped over and reused to represent two different treatments.
In May, a commenter pointed out the plants in Figure 2a of the paper in the journal Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions “look remarkably similar.” A commenter writing under the name of corresponding author, Yukio Tosa at Kobe University in Japan, posted a response two days later agreeing with the assessment and stating that the paper should be retracted.
The notice reads:
The authors of Tanaka et al. 23:771-783 (2010) retracted this article because it proved to contain a pair of identical images that were used to represent different treatments in Figure 2A. This article was retracted on 3 June 2015.
“Evolution of the Eleusine Subgroup of Pyricularia oryzae Inferred from Rearrangement at the Pwl1 Locus” detailed the development of a subgroup of Pyricularia oryzae, a fungal plant disease also known as rice blast fungus, by examining how it infects plants. It has been cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Editor-in-chief Jane Glazebrook explained what happened:
When Dr. Tosa first contacted me about the retraction, he did mention the PubPeer comment. It may be that is how he first realized that there was a problem with the paper. Dr. Tosa told me that after seeing the PubPeer comment, he made an investigation in his laboratory, and contacted the author who generated the figure at issue. Based on this investigation, Dr. Tosa decided that he wished to retract the paper. It was at that point he first contacted me.
I explained to Dr. Tosa that to retract the paper, he should send me a statement that we could publish, explaining the retraction. He did so.
After the paper was retracted, a commenter on PubPeer also pointed out that the pdf of the retracted paper had been replaced with the retraction notice. Glazebrook said it’s the journal’s policy to remove retracted papers (which goes against the retraction guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics):
We published the retraction, removed the pdf of the paper, and replaced it with the retraction notice, as you noticed. This is our standard practice. We do not want to create confusion in the scientific literature by having retracted papers available, as the conclusions of such papers are likely not reliable.
Glazebrook said that she wasn’t aware of the COPE guidelines. She said that the scientific literature may be “better served by removing retracted papers” but that she would bring it up with the publishing organization, the American Phytopathological Society Press:
I was not aware of this guideline. MPMI follows the practices of APS Press (American Phytopathological Society Press), which publishes several journals including MPMI. I was not asked whether or not the retracted paper should be removed, that decision was made in the offices of APS Press according to their standard practice. I didn’t raise any objection to it, as it seems to me that the scientific literature is better served by removing retracted papers. Having retracted papers remain available may cause confusion.
Thank you for bringing the COPE guideline to my attention. I will raise this issue with the APS publications board. Regardless of my personal opinion, I think that MPMI should follow generally accepted practices. If these include keeping retracted papers available, we should adopt that practice.
Glazebrook sent another message several hours later stating that the publisher had instructed the editorial office to meet COPE guidelines.
I wrote to the chair of the APS Press Publications board, who also was not aware of these COPE guidelines for retractions. He has just now instructed the editorial office to revise our procedures for handling retractions to conform to the COPE guidelines.
We’ve contacted Tosa for a statement and we’ll update with any response.
Hat tip: Commenter “First retraction?“
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support 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. Click here to review our Comments Policy.
Reusing an image may be sloppiness. Using an image that is flipped is more than sloppiness. It verges on intent.
Can Dr. Glazebrook please comment about the policy of correcting manuscripts in MPMI, where the text or figure is altered in the original PDF file, and not added as a separate erratum or corrigendum, with a separate DOI.
Here is an excellent example.
Activation of the Arabidopsis thaliana Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase MPK11 by the Flagellin-Derived Elicitor Peptide, flg22
Gerit Bethke, Pascal Pecher, Lennart Eschen-Lippold, Kenichi Tsuda, Fumiaki Katagiri, Jane Glazebrook, Dierk Scheel, Justin Lee (2012) Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/MPMI-11-11-0281
1 Leibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Stress and Developmental Biology, Weinberg 3, D-06120 Halle, Germany;
2 Department of Plant Biology, Microbial and Plant Genomics Institute, University of Minnesota, 1500 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul 55108, U.S.A.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B239A41839EB9A760B56564F2561AB
Dr. Glazebrook, FYI.
2013
https://pubpeer.com/publications/FCBD4AC078D8BBD20445A4901F396C
https://pubpeer.com/publications/6FE390E2E6887DBB23CAEC8736204E
https://pubpeer.com/publications/00E2E91BEEA3C200638E13A63E0AB7#fb20540
https://pubpeer.com/publications/91E319D3FCCDB480FB9E980D769DF3#fb20538
https://pubpeer.com/publications/A14E5EA45A2DA6E8D311D192A63406#fb20539
2012
https://pubpeer.com/publications/91A9FD6A2AAAB8D12E5FB9AE3DFF8D#fb23168
https://pubpeer.com/publications/EBE350E76AA87226B895CA1A47C76B#fb23171
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBB61501F798C0FA8FE0BFBF58B562#fb23185
2011
https://pubpeer.com/publications/0AF45B8D448E2399CB7EB550F62F5E
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3D43A98F92D407FC1310A52B0A5EA8
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D81CF044593BA34159F80440677974
https://pubpeer.com/publications/837004D13A8F4A3ECBDE18F018A509
https://pubpeer.com/publications/21281112
https://pubpeer.com/publications/A2FE168A3813680C03FEFDA63C292F
https://pubpeer.com/publications/FF5710B5AAF5FF3968538EBC519EE9
https://pubpeer.com/publications/4295D91811F54BC3B800B4E3B4ADB6
2010
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E455B178BA241B70F52031402791C2
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F5F2B25DCC938FBD727FB326D5F3AE
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AB391DF219B1C0923169ACAC4667E2
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BE73AA61AD53112A0E5770B618FCF0
https://pubpeer.com/publications/46A406B8E63D7478F8AD7CCF5730E6
https://pubpeer.com/publications/09011BB00603B7F026EB3C1629D44F
https://pubpeer.com/publications/4673BF8ED4339CAC9A351F9A5CB1BC
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AF7D458ABDE3EA84336EECB30ADF12
https://pubpeer.com/publications/4F01C23CEC02BC7153707FC00A3E88
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1F47D9B670EB03F972C5C2A8925DEE
https://pubpeer.com/publications/0B0DA4F7E6D225BA79217655C6D594
2009
https://pubpeer.com/publications/65D1210C6B7AAA619843C0889BCB10
https://pubpeer.com/publications/43CCEA3049EDF040C579CAB370EED4
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CA356F59F91D359ACD6FB0036B3EB6
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F77408129EE5CFDCF19D1BAE3FC0BB
https://pubpeer.com/publications/59A784AEE947F066A7AE8A73DBA773
https://pubpeer.com/publications/23B718D37687C94E85543E507AD231
https://pubpeer.com/publications/808DBA6D3ACF4B89E7D75514E8560D
https://pubpeer.com/publications/039FFA198FF208F2351D5A41CA5AAA
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F3012324724C5808D3C07F6B2155CF
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1DF41BD44B98AB4C99F79E87FD4F90
https://pubpeer.com/publications/DA699A1C14DECC6E082BF910872EA5
https://pubpeer.com/publications/1206A47D163C9D68094549968DF86F
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7CCD36954D4DDC916A44BFA19824AB
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5B0314D55BD98F8DE77772A39BE18C
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CEF4D7356E0EA9F15662F9A085C7CE
https://pubpeer.com/publications/DD5F6DCF1A6698449B1D5E08BAF7ED
https://pubpeer.com/publications/ACB54025CFF572EC452F9254353F91
https://pubpeer.com/publications/9081CD9F04100DA230AE6D43688CDC
https://pubpeer.com/publications/CFF3720352ACF1DA3BC9ACACFCD42E
https://pubpeer.com/publications/4F20DA96F082450522A4DA7949DC73
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2B0BC85976CC63D80C705C6E18F795
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E7A58C020D4852B72910CC27A17CAD
https://pubpeer.com/publications/19737096
2008
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3162EE0E8C8EE28E1EBEC634D72575
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7C90AFE8D7F938FEFF2E48A1C9D643
https://pubpeer.com/publications/0B44B6C65C126DA70900A8BF7CA148
https://pubpeer.com/publications/BBDA61C59410A7B03588467E0B193D
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2B4066D18BF1EEF76A6DDF81484630
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B9C6D2C8A4F4F02E997C333E63A291
https://pubpeer.com/publications/9E90714A1B731712B5B531053D7DC8
https://pubpeer.com/publications/396451C831729F5E1FEF9EB3A31EE5
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D4835AE831D0B0CDC45805EEAB3C53
https://pubpeer.com/publications/C2022CA5A32DF819DB95F827F71834
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5D576E2042DC84A7006CE6D48F30A4
https://pubpeer.com/publications/048A8E2B81D88B0077E040145F01A8
https://pubpeer.com/publications/6217D315A4FAC9DCA245071786D3AA
https://pubpeer.com/publications/A177D3A0DC5B46A7E1F856E849656D
https://pubpeer.com/publications/F22BDE02B241B436AFF287512760D7
https://pubpeer.com/publications/019F685CD2EEB8B19CA570CCEE0C1C
https://pubpeer.com/publications/7879A2643258E4A1870042E39F224B
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B7B82671C5A7C8BA0DBF9BEE982479
A second retraction at MPMI. As for the first retraction, the original PDF has been removed. The public cannot independently verify the alleged duplicated images and data misrepresentation.
AvrXa7-Xa7 Mediated Defense in Rice Can Be Suppressed by Transcriptional Activator-Like Effectors TAL6 and TAL11a from Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola
Zhi-Yuan Ji, Li Xiong, Li-Fang Zou, Yu-Rong Li, Wen-Xiu Ma, Liang Liu, Muhammad Zakria, Guang-Hai Ji, and Gong-You Chen
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions September 2014 – Volume 27, Number 9, Pages 983-995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-09-13-0279-R
Retraction:
“Readers of Ji et al., 27:983-995 (2014) have advised the Editor-in-Chief of several identical images used to represent different experiments. The corresponding author of this paper agrees to be responsible for the misrepresentation of these data and to retract the paper.”
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/MPMI-09-13-0279-R
This case is now covered in Japanese:
http://blog.goo.ne.jp/lemon-stoism/e/651f82f2e559f610011fd6171bfed2ba
(with reference to RW = リトラクションウォッチ)
https://pubpeer.com/publications/21281112
MPMI Vol. 24, No. 6, 2011, pp. 706–718. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-09-10-0224
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/MPMI-09-10-0224
Salicylic Acid-Dependent Restriction of Tomato ringspot virus Spread in Tobacco Is Accompanied by a Hypersensitive Response, Local RNA Silencing, and Moderate Systemic Resistance
Juan Jovel, Melanie Walker, Hélène Sanfaçon
Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PO Box 5000, 4200 Highway 97, Summerland, BC, V0H 1Z0, Canada
https://imgur.com/L8g82rX
“This is Hélène Sanfaçon, the corresponding author of the paper. I became aware of this PubPeer comment on Sept 7, when I received an E-mail alert. Unfortunately, I had not received an E-mail alert following the original comment posted in March. I wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for bringing my attention to problems associated with Fig. 3 and take entire and sole responsibility for mistakes that have occurred during the assembly of the figure. I have taken this matter very seriously and over the last few weeks together with my co-authors, we have carefully reviewed all original pictures relating to Fig. 3. The figure is a composite of Northern blots. The images for ToRSV, PR1a and RdR1 were derived from a single blot, which was stripped and reprobed consecutively for each probe. The image was manipulated to reduce the distance between the contiguous lanes, thereby producing the vertical lines. The data itself was not altered by this action. The image for SamT1 was derived from a different blot, and as such a distinct loading control should have been shown for this image. I personally apologize for this careless mistake, which has caused misleading representation of the data. I have contacted the journal to report this mistake and I am working with them towards correcting the published record.”
The Editor-in-Chief, Jane Glazebrook of the University of Minnesota has been substituted by John M. McDowell of Virginia Tech University sometime in the past 5 days.
Two other Yukio Tosa MPMI papers questioned at PubPeer.
MPMI 2006
https://pubpeer.com/publications/6731B2A5511EEFF0E5617C4AD4AF06
MPMI 2004
https://pubpeer.com/publications/517235626B6B44AE00E63CF70F07EC