The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) has sanctioned a researcher who violated the journal’s policy by refusing to share a strain of algae that he used in a 2018 paper.
Zhangfeng Hu was one of two corresponding authors, and the last author, of the paper, “New class of transcription factors controls flagellar assembly by recruiting RNA polymerase II in Chlamydomonas.” The paper has been cited three times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
May Berenbaum, PNAS’ editor in chief, tells Retraction Watch:
We received a message from a researcher who had requested a mutant strain from the authors and was rebuffed. We then corresponded with the authors, who continued to refuse to share the material, in violation of our policy stating that “Authors must make unique materials promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal.” The corresponding author has been banned from submitting any manuscripts to PNAS for three years.
Berenbaum said the journal, which has taken the step before, in 2010, elected to sanction Hu because the other corresponding author said the strains had been produced in Hu’s lab.
Here’s the expression of concern (the link will be live on PNAS sometime this week), which does not refer to the ban:
PNAS is publishing an Editorial Expression of Concern regarding the following article: “New class of transcription factors controls flagellar assembly by recruiting RNA polymerase II in Chlamydomonas,” by Lili Li, Guangmei Tian, Hai Peng, Dan Meng, Liang Wang, Xiao Hu, Cheng Tian, Miao He, Junfei Zhou, Lihong Chen, Cheng Fu, Weixiong Zhang, and Zhangfeng Hu, which was first published April 9, 2018, and appeared in issue 17, April 24, 2018; 10.1073/pnas.1719206115 (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 4435–4440). We have recently learned that, since 2019, the authors have not shared the mutant strains described in the above-noted article to qualified investigators due to ongoing research. This is a violation of PNAS editorial policy, and we are publishing this statement to alert readers. PNAS authors must ensure that all unique reagents described in their published papers are available to qualified researchers, and any restrictions on the sharing of materials must be disclosed to the editorial office at the time of submission (https://www.pnas.org/authors/editorial-and-journal-policies#materials-and-data-availability).
Hu has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
Here’s more coverage of publishing bans.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, 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 at [email protected].
Would be nice if such a ban automatically extended to other Journals. For example, during submission, authors could be asked to check that they are willing to share unique reagents /model systems AND that there currently is no Journal banning them for failure to do so.
Ironically, they might have garnered more citations for their PNAS paper if they had have shared their alga strain…
Wow, I wasn’t aware that once you had a journal article accepted and published by PNAS you gave up all exclusive rights to the research and are required on pain of shaming and banishment to provide any and all materials to any person claiming to be “qualified” even if you are continuing to do research in the area of the already published paper.
Sounds to me like researchers should avoid PNAS and other publishers that demand compliance with such draconian publishing terms you give up all rights to any future research if you publish in their journal.
Nobody is asking to give up any rights, just that the reagents (often developed with taxpayers’ money) be shared with others. The NIH as one of the biggest sources of research funding makes a similar request: “NIH considers the sharing of unique research resources developed through NIH-sponsored research an important means to enhance the value and further the advancement of research. When resources have been developed with NIH funds and the associated research findings published or provided to NIH, it is important that the results be made readily available for research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community.”
Those conditions are pretty clearly stated in the terms, and are not that draconian (as Michael B points out, you aren’t giving anything up, just agreeing to share with others). Also, sharing reagents is vital for reproducibility. You can’t do science otherwise. PNAS is a scientific journal, not a platform for advertising secret procedures.
“Authors must make unique materials promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal.”
———-
“PNAS authors must ensure that all unique reagents described in their published papers are available to qualified researchers, and any restrictions on the sharing of materials must be disclosed to the editorial office at the time of submission.”
———-
Which one is it. Must researcher release all “unique materials” up to and including the mutant species of algae OR do they merely have to release all “unique reagents” which are defines on dictionary .com as “a substance that, because of the reactions it causes, is used in analysis and synthesis.”. A definition which can hardly be stretched far enough to include that unique species of algae (a living organism)
PNAS needs to be more specific in its terms or at least define the terms “unique materials” and “unique reagents”.
I don’t understand exactly why the retraction. Wouldn’t just the ban on future submissions be more appropriate, given the journal’s policies? A retraction seems unjustified.
“Authors must make unique materials promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal.”
========================================
The strain is published and should be shared. These folks got off
easy by being banned from the PNAS for 3 years.
Joel Rosenbaum, Yale University