The capacity of the scientific literature to self-correct is of vital importance, but few studies have compared post-publication journal responses to specific error types. We have compared journal responses to a specific reagent error in 31 human gene knockdown publications, namely a non-targeting or negative control nucleotide sequence that is instead predicted to target a human gene. The 31 papers published by 13 biomedical journals generated 26 published responses (14 retractions, 5 expressions of concern, 7 author corrections which included one resolved expression of concern) as well as 6 stated decisions to take no action. Variations in published responses were noted both between journals and by 4 journals that published different responses to at least 2 papers. A subset of published responses revealed conflicting explanations for the wrongly identified control reagent, despite 30/31 papers obtaining their gene knockdown reagents from the same external supplier. Viewed collectively, different journal responses to human gene knockdown publications with a common reagent error type suggest that editorial staff require more support to interpret post-publication notifications of incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents. We propose a draft template to facilitate the communication, interpretation and investigation of published errors, including errors affecting research reagents.
CITATION STYLE
Byrne, J. A., Park, Y., West, R. A., Capes-Davis, A., Favier, B., Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3513–3534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.