Retraction Watch上关于那片Nature作假的 - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Biology - 生物学

Retraction Watch上关于那片Nature作假的

Retraction Watch上关于那片Nature作假的# Biology - 生物学

a*u2012-08-03 07:08

1 楼

给了口头的OFFER，说等学校管理层的批准。都一个月了，还没有结果。今天给search
committee chair 发邮件，回复如下：
I am sorry. I don't have any information. I believe that it is at the
university level and we are having a transition at the provost's office. The
current provost is leaving his position next week, I believe.
唉，等的焦虑也没有办法。
给OFFER的时候，SCC还说一切是学校决定的，所以不要make assumption，说的让我很
担心。现在，更担心了。
找个教职真不简单，轻轻松松半年就过去了。

v*i2012-08-03 07:08

2 楼

【以下文字转载自 Statistics 讨论区】
发信人: vivicici (在物是人非的景色里我最喜欢你), 信区: Statistics
标题: 一个opening（contractor）
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Tue Oct 5 09:44:54 2010, 美东)
一个local公司招biostatistician 我昨晚十点多投的简历
今天一大早公司的recruiter打电话给我
和我解释说这个职位一定要2 yr+的CRO/pharmaceutical经验
所以我不fit 但是会keep in mind有合适的职位告诉我
最后问我有没有同学有2年经验的推荐给他
我说我知道的都已经工作了可能不想换工作
他就说让我有合适的人选打电话给他-___-
估计是急着要人吧
6各月的contractor
需要两年的CRO、pharmaceutical经验
公司的名字是Global Employment Solutions

s*h2012-08-03 07:08

3 楼

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/you-can-do-that
You can do that? A massive correction in Nature, but no retraction
This past April, Amparo Acker-Palmer and colleagues published a study in
Nature, “Ephrin Bs are essential components of the Reelin pathway to
regulate neuronal migration.” Within a day of its publication, Nature
readers were raising questions about many of its figures. They started like
this:
Andy Gu said:
Looks like Fig 1a, the two middle figures are actually the same with
little move from desired regions. I don’t trust their data now…..
After several such comments, Nature senior editor Noah Gray weighed in:
Many thanks to all who have pointed out potential irregularities in the
figures of this manuscript. The issue is currently under investigation by
Nature, with the full cooperation of the authors, and we will move quickly
to bring this issue to conclusion. Both editors and authors are committed to
ensuring that the scientific record is accurate and are thus working
diligently to restore confidence in the results. Thank you for your patience.
A few Retraction Watch readers have brought this exchange to our attention,
and suggested that a retraction was in order, so we’ve been keeping an eye
out. Nature has acted, but rather than a retraction, the journal has issued
a correction. It’s a whopper:
In this Letter we made errors in representative image choice, including
mislabelling of images or choosing an image from the inappropriate genotype.
In all cases, choice of images was completely independent of the data
analysis and so none of the conclusions in our original Letter are affected.
We apologise for any confusion these errors may have caused.
Figure 1a depicts a Tbr1 staining of the adult mouse cortex for four
different genotypes. In the process of choosing representative pictures that
reflect the results of our analysis shown in Fig. 1b, cropped images from
original pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
provide below a corrected version of Fig. 1a with new representative images
for the following genotypes: WT and Reln1/1;Efnb32/2. A new high-
magnification picture for WT is also shown in the two rightmost panels.
Original images for every genotype and additional examples are shown in the
Supplementary Information of this Corrigendum.
Figure 1c depicts a Brn1 staining of the E17.5 mouse cortex for five
different genotypes. In the process of figure assembly cropped images from
original pictures were inadvertently mislabelled and used incorrectly. We
provide below a corrected Fig. 1c with a new image for Reln1/1; Efnb3–/–.
In the ephrinB3 compound mice (Reln1/2; Efnb32/2) Brn11 cells aberrantly
accumulate in the lower layers of the cortex and do not migrate to the upper
layers, resembling the Reeler (Reln2/2) phenotype. Original pictures and
additional examples are shown in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum, where arrows indicate the distribution of Brn11 cells. We have
also included results from a new, reproduced experiment recently performed
with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same results.
In Fig. 1d, the second panel, labelled ‘Reln1/1;Efnb3–/–’ should
instead be labelled ‘Reln1/2’. In the Methods summary section ‘
Stimulation of neurons’, ‘‘Cortical neurons from E14.5 were grown….’’
should instead read ‘‘Cortical neurons from E15.5 were grown….’’.
There were mistakes in the supplementary online material, too:
Further errors in the Supplementary Information of the original Letter
are described and corrected in the Supplementary Information of this
Corrigendum.
We thought this was quite an extensive collection of errors, so we wanted to
know why Nature thought a correction was a better way to deal with them
than a retraction. The journal responded (emphasis theirs):
Please see the definitions for corrigenda and retractions in the Nature
journals. In this case a corrigenda was appropriate since the finding in the
paper remains unchanged.
A Corrigendum is a notification of an important error made by the author
(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the
paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. All authors must
sign corrigenda submitted for publication. In cases where coauthors disagree
, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers and impose
the appropriate amendment, noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of
the published version.
A Retraction is a notification of invalid results. All coauthors must
sign a retraction specifying the error and stating briefly how the
conclusions are affected, and submit it for publication. In cases where
coauthors disagree, the editors will seek advice from independent peer-
reviewers and impose the type of amendment that seems most appropriate,
noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.
We were also curious about the new results presented in the Corrigendum:
We have also included results from a new, reproduced experiment recently
performed with an additional cohort of animals that shows exactly the same
results.
We’ve seen claims like this before, in other journals, and at least one of
those journals said it hadn’t even looked at the new data. Here, at least
Nature is making it available. We wondered if Nature typically peer-review
statements made in corrections and retractions, and whether they’d peer-
reviewed this particular set of new results.
Nature would only sat that peer review is confidential, and that it would be
best if we spoke to the authors. We tried to do that, but the corresponding
author hasn’t responded to our requests for comment.
We’ll update with anything we find out.

f*y2012-08-03 07:08

4 楼

bless

search
The

【在 a******u 的大作中提到】

: 给了口头的OFFER，说等学校管理层的批准。都一个月了，还没有结果。今天给search
: committee chair 发邮件，回复如下：
: I am sorry. I don't have any information. I believe that it is at the
: university level and we are having a transition at the provost's office. The
: current provost is leaving his position next week, I believe.
: 唉，等的焦虑也没有办法。
: 给OFFER的时候，SCC还说一切是学校决定的，所以不要make assumption，说的让我很
: 担心。现在，更担心了。
: 找个教职真不简单，轻轻松松半年就过去了。

g*52012-08-03 07:08

5 楼

someone could make some youtube about this paper? and we could post it
everywhere and marked this editor maybe got some profit from those authors..
.

c*y2012-08-03 07:08

6 楼

Hang in there.
Mine took two months and I've heard cases that took much longer.
Not under your control so go do something useful. Otherwise you can drive
yourself
crazy.

f*e2012-08-03 07:08

7 楼

bless

a*u2012-08-03 07:08

8 楼

Thanks.

f*d2012-08-03 07:08

9 楼

bless！
已经跟系里协商了salary、starting date了吗？

search
The

【在 a******u 的大作中提到】

T*y2012-08-03 07:08

10 楼

我的足足take了4个月，这这算啥。要淡定啊。。。

a*u2012-08-03 07:08

11 楼

谢谢
有更新了，在negotiate

f*y2012-08-03 07:08

12 楼

4个月
。。。
啥学校这么淡定？

【在 T**********y 的大作中提到】

: 我的足足take了4个月，这这算啥。要淡定啊。。。

l*r2012-08-03 07:08

13 楼

Things could be even more stressful. When waiting for the official offer,
the same job was posted online at a different website. Isn't that strange?

l*r2012-08-03 07:08

14 楼

Congratulations to your updated situation! 希望能够沾点喜气！

L*82012-08-03 07:08

15 楼

me2 操。。。

【在 l********r 的大作中提到】

: Things could be even more stressful. When waiting for the official offer,
: the same job was posted online at a different website. Isn't that strange?

M*o2012-08-03 07:08

16 楼

不要担心，我当初也等了1，2个月。只要你不公开发表反犹言论，offer肯定没得跑：）
http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Academic-group-plans-Unive

search
The

【在 a******u 的大作中提到】

M*o2012-08-03 07:08

17 楼

l*r2012-08-03 07:08

18 楼

I have update：I got the official offer finally.
给还在等的加油！

W*L2012-08-03 07:08

19 楼

恭喜恭喜！

【在 l********r 的大作中提到】

: I have update：I got the official offer finally.
: 给还在等的加油！

a*u2012-08-03 07:08

20 楼

我还在等学校批准Startup，工资商量好了