博文
[转载]不能因为撤稿对期刊的名声也造成损害就不撤稿（英汉对译）
|||
读者留言：
（1）
一切都只是为了钱。在出版商那里，科学价值低于金钱。对于像 AACR 这样的患者组织下的期刊来说，这很难理解。有人可能真的以为，为科学进步和对患者的利益，期刊能把学术道德放在首位。
（2）
我总是说，期刊都是论文中出现的所有造假行为的首要责任人。充分的理解这一点可以用一个例子说明。
...
期刊不要和学术不端的作者穿一条裤子。
Nearly two years after a university asked for retractions, two journals have done nothing.
http://retractionwatch.com/2018/07/13/
Nearly two years after a university asked for retractions, two journals have done nothing
大学要求撤稿近两年，两家期刊什么也没做
July 13, 2018
How long should a retraction take?
撤稿需要花多长时间？
That’s a complex question, of course, depending on how long the alleged issues with a paper take to be investigated, whether authors — and their lawyers — fight tooth-and-nail against a retraction, and other factors. But once a university officially requests a retraction, how long should one take?
显然，这已经成为一个复杂的问题。取决于问题论文需要调的查的时间，作者——以及他们的律师——会竭尽全力反对撤稿，还有等其他因素。但是，当大学正式提出撤稿要求，应该花多长时间才能撤稿？
The answer, for two journals who published work by cancer researcher Anil Jaiswal, is 22 months — and counting.
要求撤稿Anil Jaiswal 发表在两本期刊文章的要求已经22 个月了——而且还没有结果。
More than a year ago, we reported that from August 2016 until February 2017, the University of Maryland, Baltimore, requested 22 retractions of work by Jaiswal, in which they found evidence of inappropriate image manipulation. The university had also recommended that journals retract or correct four additional articles. (Jaiswal transitioned out of research last year; he retired from the university on November 1, 2017, according to a spokesperson.)
一年多前，我们报道了从 2016 年 8 月到 2017 年 2 月，马里兰大学巴尔的摩分校 （University of Maryland， Baltimore） 要求 撤回Jaiswal 的22 篇文章，并在这些文章中发现了不当数据图操纵的证据。该大学还要求这两本期刊撤回或更正Jaiswal 的另外四篇文章。（Jaiswal 去年退出了研究领域;据一位发言人称，他于 2017 年 11 月 1 日退休。）
By April 2017, Jaiswal had 15 retractions. As of today, he has 16. That’s still shy of the 22 the University of Maryland requested, and it turns out that three journals — Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, and Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, all published by the American Association for Cancer Research — have yet to do anything about seven articles the university requested be retracted. (Readers may recall a recent case in which a journal declined to retract a paper — this one by Paolo Macchiarini and colleagues — despite an institution’s request.)
到 2017 年 4 月，Jaiswal 的文章已经被撤稿 15 次。截至今天，他他的撤稿文章已经达到 16 篇，但是仍然低于马里兰大学要求的 22 篇撤稿。结果是，由美国癌症研究协会出版的三本期刊——癌症研究、临床癌症研究和分子癌症治疗学——均尚未对该大学要求撤回的 7 篇文章采取任何措施。读者可能还记得最近的一个案例，一家期刊不顾机构的撤稿要求，拒绝撤稿一篇论文——这篇论文是由保罗·马基亚里尼（Paolo Macchiarini）及其同事撰写的。
The University of Maryland, Baltimore’s letter to Cancer Research was dated August 24, 2016, and requested five retractions:
2016 年 8 月 24 日马里兰大学巴尔的摩分校致信Cancer Research期刊，要求5篇撤稿：
It’s worth noting that all of these papers continued to be cited after August 24, 2016, anywhere from once to seven times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
值得注意的是，根据 SCI索引的数据库信息，所有这些论文在 2016 年 8 月 24 日之后继续被引用，被引用次数从 1 次到 7 次不等。
We asked Chi Dang, the editor of Cancer Research, why the journal still hadn’t taken any action. Dang noted that he did not become editor until January of this year, so “the detailed history of this is beyond me at this time.”
我们向Cancer Research 期刊的编辑 Chi Dang询问为什么该杂志仍然没有采取任何行动。Dang 推脱说他今年 1 月才成为编辑，因此“目前我不知道这件事的详细情况”。
However, I have been informed that several of Dr. Jaiswal’s papers will be retracted while several others are under the jurisdiction of Baylor College, which has been contacted by Cancer Research prior to our making a decision. Be assured, I treat these issues with great intensity and will dig deep into the issues and mitigate whatever that is needed. Since I have not had a chance to review the issues fully, I cannot tell you why there is a delay in retracting the papers in question other than the communication with Baylor. We believe that inclusion of the academic institutions in the dialogue is extremely important.
但是，我被告知，Jaiswal 博士的几篇论文将被撤回，而其他几篇论文由贝勒学院裁决，Cancer Research期刊正在与贝勒学院联系。 请放心，我会认真地对待这些问题，并将深入调查以解决任何需要解决的问题。由于不是我在全面审查这些文章，在贝勒给出结论之前，我无法告诉你，撤稿问题为什么拖了这么久。我们认为学术机构（贝勒学院）的参是极为重要。
Baylor, however, tells Retraction Watch that the buck stops at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and that Cancer Research did not contact them until June of this year — some 21 months after the date of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, letter. According to a spokesperson:
然而，贝勒告诉 Retraction Watch，调查已经由马里兰大学巴尔的摩分校接手，Cancer Research直到今年 6 月还没有再次联系他们——这已经是在马里兰大学巴尔的摩分校撤稿要求函之后 21 个月了。
When Dr. Anil Jaiswal left the employment of Baylor College of Medicine in July 2007, his grants transferred with him to the University of Maryland, along with all data associated with them.
Anil Jaiswal 博士于 2007 年 7 月调离开贝勒医学院时，他的资助连同与之相关的所有数据一起转移到了马里兰大学。
We received an inquiry from Cancer Research on June 12, 2018, outlining concerns about the research associated with these grants. On June 27, 2018, our dean of research, Dr. Adam Kuspa, replied to Cancer Research that the grants had been transferred to the University of Maryland as well as all research materials supported by the two awards. As a result, we are not able to assess whether or not the allegations have substance or to open an inquiry, and he noted that any assessment, inquiry or investigation be conducted through his current awardee institution where these materials would be found.
我们于 2018 年 6 月 12 日收到了Cancer Research期刊的询问，涉及对这些研究的资助的问题。2018 年 6 月 27 日，我们的研究院长 Adam Kuspa 博士回复Cancer Research期刊，相关的资助经费以及支持资助项目的所有研究材料已转交给马里兰大学。因此，我们无法评估这些指控是否有实质内容或展开调查，他指出，任何评估、询问或调查都应通过受资助机构进行，相关材料都在那里。
The University of Maryland also recommended in an August 24, 2016 letter that “Aromatase Inhibitor-Mediated Downregulation of INrf2 (Keap1) Leads to Increased Nrf2 and Resistance in Breast Cancer,” published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, be retracted. It hasn’t been, and has been cited three times since the date of the letter.
马里兰大学还在 2016 年 8 月 24 日要求撤回发表在《分子癌症治疗学》上的“Aromatase Inhibitor-Mediated Downregulation of INrf2 (Keap1) Leads to Increased Nrf2 and Resistance in Breast Cancer”文章。但是这篇文章没有被撤回，自撤稿要求之日起，该文已经又被引用了 3 次。
And in a February 21, 2017 letter, the university requested that Clinical Cancer Research retract “NRH:quinone oxidoreductase 2-deficient mice are highly susceptible to radiation-induced B-cell lymphomas,” The paper has yet to be retracted, but it has not been cited since February 2017.
在 2017 年 2 月 21 日的一封信中，该大学要Clinical Cancer Research期刊撤回“NRH:quinone oxidoreductase 2-deficient mice are highly susceptible to radiation-induced B-cell lymphomas”文章。该论文尚未被撤回，但自 2017 年 2 月以来该文也未被引用过。
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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.
喜欢 Retraction Watch？您可以免税捐款以支持我们的发展，在 Twitter 上关注我们，在 Facebook 上为我们点赞，将我们添加到您的 RSS 订阅中，用电子邮件注册（查找屏幕右下角的“关注”按钮）即便每次有新消息都能发给你。或订阅我们的daily digest（每日摘要）。如果您发现我们的数据库中没有收录撤回的内容，您可以在此处告诉我们。如需评论或反馈，请发送电子邮件至 team@retractionwatch.com。
17 thoughts on “Nearly two years after a university asked for retractions, two journals have done nothing”
1. 
Giuliosays:
I always use to say that a lot of journals are the first responsible for all the falsifications present in the papers. I have a really solid example for that. More than a year ago, I spotted on a journal a clear duplication in the manuscript. My expression of concern to the editorial board of the journal was ignored many times. I got a reply only from the handling editor which promised that an expression of concern will appear on the journal. Nothing happened and after other emails, editor replied that the paper will not be retracted as well not expression of concern because Karolinska investigation cleared off all the authors (all affiliated to KI). Skipping the fact that any investigation SHOULD BE PERFORMED by an external source and not the one to which the authors belong to, skipping that the try to defend the authors was pathetic and not prooved, I don`t see the reason why the journal can`t retract a paper independently from the investigation as long as they think data were manipulated (and manipulation was evident and also recognized by the handling editor). Truth is that the retraction of a paper is a damage not only for the authors but also for the journal so a lot of expression of concern brings to nothings and a lot of papers with evident data manipulation are out there untouched and uncorrected. Sad but true.
我总是说，期刊都是论文中出现的所有造假行为的首要责任人。充分的理解这一点可以用一个例子说明。一年多前，我发现在一个期刊上发表了抄袭文章。我向该杂志的编辑委员会表达的担忧被多次忽视。我只收到了处理编辑的回复，他们承诺会在期刊上刊发你的关注。但是什么也没发生，在后续电子邮件中，编辑回复说这篇论文也不会被撤回，也不会发表你的担忧，因为 Karolinska 的调查已经结案。任何调查都应该由第三方而不是作者所属的单位做出。不说为作者辩护的尝试是可悲的且没有提供具体证实，我看不出为什么期刊就不能根据数据操纵的事实独立地调查撤回一篇文章（数据操纵是显而易见的，也被处理编辑认可了）。事实是，论文的撤稿不仅对作者的名誉造成损害，而且对期刊的名声也造成损害，因此很多抄袭指控都没有任何结果，许多明显存在数据操纵的文章没有被发现被纠正。可悲但真实。
2. Mortysays:
It’s all about money. The scientific value is of lower importance among publishers. This is hard to understand for journals under patient organizations like AACR. One may think that keeping the scholarly record correct would be their first priority due to advantages for scientific progress and benefit for the patients.
一切都只是为了钱。在出版商那里，科学价值低于金钱。对于像 AACR 这样的患者组织下的期刊来说，这很难理解。有人可能真的以为，为科学进步和对患者的利益，期刊能把学术道德放在首位。
3. Fernando Pessoasays:
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/4/1511.long A unique glucose-dependent apoptotic pathway induced by c-Myc Hyunsuk Shim*, Yoon S. Chun*, Brian C. Lewis†, and Chi V. Dang*†‡§¶‖ *Department of Medicine, †Program in Human Genetics and Molecular Biology, Departments of ‡Molecular Biology and Genetics and §Pathology, and ¶The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205 PNAS February 17, 1998. 95 (4) 1511-1516; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.4.1511
Figure 2A. https://imgur.com/JiMdKA7
1. Chi Van Dangsays:
Thank you for pointing this out. I have examined the figures (flow diagrams in the composite) in question, and they do seem to be replicated. Be assured that experiments we published are independently replicated. I will attempt to dig back into the records with the authors to determine how this could have happened. This was clearly an oversight – that is unacceptable. I take full responsibility for this.
4. Fernando Pessoasays:
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/29/21797.long J Biol Chem. 2000 Jul 21;275(29):21797-800. Home Current Issue Papers in Press Editors’ Picks Minireviews Deregulation of Glucose Transporter 1 and Glycolytic Gene Expression by c-Myc* Rebecca C. Osthus‡, Hyunsuk Shim§¶, Sunkyu Kim§‡, Qing Li§, Rahul Reddy§, Mita Mukherjee‖, Yi Xu‖, Diane Wonsey‡, Linda A. Lee§ and Chi V. Dang‡,§** – Author Affiliations From the ‡Program in Human Genetics and Molecular Biology, §Department of Medicine, and ‖Department of Pediatrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205
Figure 2A. https://imgur.com/9PyKq7T
1. Fernando Pessoasays:
Additional problematic data J Biol Chem. 2000 Jul 21;275(29):21797-800.
Figure 2A. https://imgur.com/G8Zdd7D
1. Chi Van Dangsays:
The data on TPI are what they were. If you read the science behind the data, there is no significant change in expression with MYC. Please check the literature; this finding remains to be the case. You could have picked other images as well for bands that appear identical. Unfortunately, this particular “problematic” data is probably picked up by image analysis using AI, which is imperfect. The fact that a human being posts this allegation anonymously behind the pseudonym of Fernando Pessoa is unfortunate, because it reflects that discretion using scientific knowledge and expertise was not exercised. This is shameful.
1. Fernando Pessoasays:
How do you explain the PFK data?
J Biol Chem. 2000 Jul 21;275(29):21797-800. Figure 2A. https://imgur.com/G8Zdd7D
2. Chi Van Dangsays:
Thank you for pointing this out. The areas you highlighted in the composite figure for PFK1 do appear to have been replicated but represented as results from different experiments. This is an unacceptable lack of oversight on my part as principal investigator; I accept full responsibility. Please do note, notwithstanding this mistake, that our initial observations have been well extended and corroborated over the past two decades. But this is no excuse for poorly assembled figures. I appreciate the scrutiny and welcome any additional ones among our publications.
5. Fernando Pessoasays:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610807002334?via%3Dihub Cancer Cell Volume 12, Issue 3, 11 September 2007, Pages 230-238 HIF-Dependent Antitumorigenic Effect of Antioxidants In Vivo Author links Ping Gao1 Huafeng Zhang 26 Ramani Dinavahi 1 Feng Li 1 YanXiang 1 Venu Raman 45 Zaver M.Bhujwalla 45 Dean W. Felsher 8 Linzhao Cheng 6 JonathanPevsner 3 Linda A. Lee 1 Gregg L. Semenza 12467 Chi V. Dang 147 1 Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 2 Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 3 Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 4 Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 5 Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 6 Institute for Cell Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 7 McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA 8 Departments of Medicine and Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/570E89FFAE3E5DA9E772DCCC337C2B#1
1. Chi Van Dangsays:
I am unsure as to what the issue is. Mice bearing tumors are emaciated as illustrated in the photograph.
6. Fernando Pessoasays:
Immediate, long time previous editor-in-chief Cancer Res.
Cancer Res. 2004 Nov 15;64(22):8389-96. Cyclin B1 is a critical target of RhoB in the cell suicide program triggered by farnesyl transferase inhibition. Kamasani U1, Huang M, Duhadaway JB, Prochownik EV, Donover PS, Prendergast GC. Author information 1 Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania 19096, USA.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/82A7170E7125EE56777336B7903606
7. Fernando Pessoasays:
Cancer Res. 1999 May 1;59(9):2059-63. Elevation of alpha2(I) collagen, a suppressor of Ras transformation, is required for stable phenotypic reversion by farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Du W1, Lebowitz PF, Prendergast GC. Author information 1 The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/3DBB548E0C31194ED821EBA4E3FA44
8. Fernando Pessoasays:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009279706001323?via%3Dihub Chemico-Biological Interactions Volume 162, Issue 1, 25 July 2006, Pages 81-87 Chemico-Biological Interactions RETRACTED: Si RNA inhibition of GRP58 associated with decrease in mitomycin C-induced DNA cross-linking and cytotoxicity Author links open overlay panelShibingSuab1Anbu KaraniAdikesavana1Anil K.Jaiswala a Department of Pharmacology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA b Research Center for Traditional Chinese Medicine Complexity System, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 1200 Cailun Road, Pudong, Shanghai 201203, PR China.
This article has been retracted at the request of the Office of Integrity of the University of Maryland due to data entered in Fig 3 of the publication that were not supported by raw data, in addition to the fact that the statistical evaluations were adultered.
1. herr doktor bimlersays:
“the statistical evaluations were adultered”??
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3589443-1464984.html
上一篇：[转载]顶刊和论文工厂之间的黑幕被实锤
