NWFblogs/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
A case of mistaken identity among sharks has led to a correction that changed, among other content, an article’s title, its abstract and the discussion section.
The paper, published in February 2024 in Environmental Biology of Fishes, was originally titled “Expanded vertical niche for two species of pelagic sharks: depth range extension for the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus and novel twilight zone occurrence by the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformi.”
But after re-examining the data, the authors concluded: “the dusky shark from the published paper was misidentified, and instead, it is most likely a bignose shark,” according to an October 2024 correction to the article.
The changes to the title amend the name of the shark and revoke the range extension for the dusky shark. The updated species ID also required changes in the abstract, paragraphs in the introduction, results, and discussion, a figure caption, and references. The original text, including its original title, is no longer available online.
The article has been cited twice, once under each version of the title. The journal is indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Olivia Dixon, the research coordinator at Beneath the Waves and corresponding author of the study, did not respond to our request for comment.
Margaret Docker, a professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, was editor-in-chief at the time of the correction. In an email to Retraction Watch, she justified the issuing of a correction rather than a retraction.
“[E]ven though the original identification of a dusky shark led to an erroneous depth range extension for this species,” Docker said, “in consultation with the authors and Advisory Editor, we felt that enough of the original study was still valid that correcting the misidentification was more appropriate than retracting the whole paper.”
Springer Nature’s policy on retractions and corrections addresses cases of scientific misconduct, but not cases of mistaken species identification.
In most of the corrections, “the bulk of these sections were unchanged,” Docker said, and the second species, the silky shark, “was not affected at all.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, 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 team@retractionwatch.com.