The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications
The thin ret(raction) line: biomedical journal responses to incorrect non-targeting nucleotide sequence reagents in human gene knockdown publications
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9
复制
发表时间：
2021-02-28
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Labbe, Cyril
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Byrne, Jennifer A.;Park, Yasunori;Labbe, Cyril
科学文献的自我纠正能力至关重要，但很少有研究比较出版后期刊对特定错误类型的反应。我们比较了31篇人类基因敲除出版物中特定试剂错误的期刊反应，即非靶向或阴性对照核苷酸序列，该序列被预测为靶向人类基因。13种生物医学期刊发表的31篇论文产生了26篇已发表的回复(14篇撤回，5篇表示关切，7篇作者更正，其中包括1篇已解决的关切表达)，以及6项声明的不采取行动的决定。不同期刊和4种期刊对至少2篇论文发表了不同的回复，注意到发表的回复存在差异。尽管30/31的论文从同一外部供应商获得了他们的基因敲除试剂，但发表的一组回复显示，对错误识别的对照试剂的解释相互矛盾。从整体上看，对具有共同试剂错误类型的人类基因敲除出版物的不同期刊反应表明，编辑人员需要更多的支持来解释不正确核苷酸序列试剂的发表后通知。我们提出了一个模板草案，以促进对已发表的错误的沟通、解释和调查，包括影响研究试剂的错误。
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.