Ââ¿sãƒâ O No? Did You Review the Cultural Information in Your Notes? Yes No
RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
Under a Creative Commons license
Open up admission
This commodity has been retracted: please encounter Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://world wide web.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
The periodical Food and Chemic Toxicology retracts the article "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize," which was published in this journal in November 2012. This retraction comes subsequently a thorough and time-consuming analysis of the published article and the data it reports, along with an investigation into the peer-review behind the article. The Editor in-Main deferred making any public statements regarding this article until this investigation was complete, and the authors were notified of the findings.
Very shortly after the publication of this article, the periodical received Letters to the Editor expressing concerns about the validity of the findings it described, the proper use of animals, and even allegations of fraud. Many of these letters called upon the editors of the journal to retract the paper. According to the journal'southward standard practice, these letters, as well as the letters in support of the findings, were published forth with a response from the authors.1 Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not ofttimes made; yet, it is in accordance with the journal'due south policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if and so requested.2 The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Main wishes to acknowledge the co-functioning of the respective author in this affair, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.
Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief establish no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the information. However, in that location is a legitimate crusade for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review procedure, but the peer review conclusion ultimately weighed that the piece of work even so had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions tin can exist reached with this small sample size regarding the part of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague–Dawley rat, normal variability cannot exist excluded every bit the crusade of the college bloodshed and incidence observed in the treated groups.
Ultimately, the results presented (while not wrong) are inconclusive, and therefore practice not achieve the threshold of publication for Food and Chemic Toxicology. The peer review process is not perfect, but information technology does work. The periodical is committed to getting the peer-review process right, and at times, expediency might exist sacrificed for being as thorough as possible. The time-consuming nature is, at times, required in fairness to both the authors and readers. Likewise, the Letters to the Editor, both pro and con, serve as a post-publication peer-review. The back and forth betwixt the readers and the author has a useful and valuable place in our scientific dialog.
The Editor-in-Chief over again commends the corresponding writer for his willingness and openness in participating in this dialog. The retraction is but on the inconclusiveness of this i paper. The journal'due south editorial policy will continue to review all manuscripts no thing how controversial they may be. The editorial board will continue to use this example as a reminder to be every bit diligent equally possible in the peer review process.
Cited by (0)
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
Post a Comment for "Ââ¿sãƒâ O No? Did You Review the Cultural Information in Your Notes? Yes No"