What Caught Our Attention: Usually, when journals publish corrections to articles, they also correct the original article, except when the original is unavailable online. When Nature noticed that some figure panels in a 20-year-old paper were duplicated, it flagged the issue for readers — but didn’t correct the online version of the original paper. According to the notice, the duplications don’t disturb the conclusion illustrated by the figure, the original data couldn’t be found, and the last two authors had retired. We contacted a spokesperson at Nature, who told us “the information at the start of the paper clearly links to the corrigendum.”
Authors: Yizheng Wang, Daniel L. Small, Danica B. Stanimirovic, Paul Morley, Jon P. Durkin
Affiliations: National Research Council of Canada, Canada
It has come to our attention that Fig. 4 in this Letter presented three events of data duplication. In Fig. 4a the panels in row 1, columns 1 and 7 were the same, in Fig. 4a the panels in row 3, columns 5 and 7 were the same, and in Fig. 4c and e, the panels in columns 1–3 were the same. Given the time elapsed since publication, we could not locate the original raw data. The main conclusion illustrated by Fig. 4, however, of dose-dependent (Fig. 4d) and Gβγ-sensitive (Fig. 4f) activation of Gαi1 by AMPA in MIN6 cells, which do not express GluR6 (Fig. 4b), remains unaffected. Authors J.P.D. and P.M., now both retired, could not be reached. The original Letter has not been corrected online.
Date of Article: October 1997
Times Cited, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science: 113
Date of Notice: December 20, 2017
Hat Tip: Tony Tweedale
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us email@example.com.