A groundbreaking study published by University of Manitoba scientists will be retracted from the high-profile science journal Nature in December due to concerns the research isn’t valid.

University of Manitoba officials admitted they haven’t ruled out the possibility that fraudulent data could be at the centre of the academic controversy.

Plant science researchers Fawzi Razem and Ashraf El-Kereamy, led by Robert Hill, discovered a receptor for the major hormone linked to a plant’s response to environmental stress. The receptor eluded scientists for two decades and was published and featured in the editor’s summary in the January 2006 edition of Nature, one of the world’s most renowned international science journals.

Peter McVetty, head of the university’s plant science department, said concerns about the data emerged mid-summer when a team of researchers from New Zealand tried to replicate the study’s findings and couldn’t.

Hill confirmed he wrote the retraction letter that will appear in Nature this month, but said what went wrong is a “confidential matter.”

Steve: Yes. I sent him a reminder without acknowledgement.

no, I don’t assume that the SI is the subject of the comment either.

my fingers are obviously too fat for texting on my ipod!

If it’s under revision right now, what does that say about the SI availability as at the time of acceptance and publication?

Nothing really until we see what the revisions are, for all we know they’re only going to add some pictures.

If it’s under revision right now, what does that say about the SI availability as at the time of acceptance and publication?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&ex=1365307200&en=dc270baec0c66ed7&ei=5090&oref=slogin

Th link above points to a New York Times story in which a famous and influential psychology experiment from the 1950s has been shown to have resulted from mistaken mathematics.

I think that this shows that peer review is not just review prior to publication but continues with the examination of reported research by other researchers. In other words, the auditing performed by Steve McIntyre is an essential aspect of peer review. And the assertion by Peter Webster above that his results will await the process of peer review before publication does not contain the full process of peer review. When a result is published, peer review has only just begun and as the New York Times story reveals even a result presented in textbooks may be invalidated 50 years after it is reported.

Thinking about it some more, a better possibility is the “duty to disclose”. It is required of any inventor to disclose to the patent office any fact that is pertinent to the validity of his/her patent. So if this reviewer had seen a published paper that contradicted some of the observations in his/her patent then he/she would have to disclose these to the patent examiner. Anything else would be considered a fraud on the patent office and a failure to disclose would render the patent invalid. Prior art is not an issue here just the requirement to disclose all facts whether they are adverse or not. These facts could come to light after the submission date.

I’m not a lawyer but this does seem to be a very tricky point. If a reviewer sees pertinent information in a confidential reviewing process, what should he/she do? I know that a paper submitted for review is not a public disclosure. Public disclosure comes on the date of publication or presentation at a conference.
.