Science changed an expression of concern on an article of 2022 into an erratum after having removed one of the co -authors – which turned out to have committed a fault – and allow researchers to repeat experiences.
Paper, “Structural base for the activation of the Strychnine of the Human Amer Taste Tas2R46“, Was cited 68 times, according to the web of science in Clarivate.
Two months after the publication of the article in September 2022, Science published an editorial Expression of concern, indicating that a post-publication analysis had found a figure with “Potential differences. “”
The authors worked with “external experts” to repeat the aspects of experience, Meagan Phelan, director of communications for Sciencetold us. They “repeated experiences to transfer energy from bioluminescence” which were the basis of two of the numbers in the article, one of which was at the center of the 2022 concern, the new 2025 Opinion of the States.
“The new data did not provide strong functional support” for the previous work linked to these figures, and the “conclusions on the precondition are lower than in the original version”, indicates the erratum. However, “publishers remain confident in the main conclusions of the newspaper”, according to the opinion. The two figures were removed from the corrected study.
When we asked why Science Did not withdraw the document, Phelan told us instead of withdrawing “a study where the conclusions were still held, we worked with the author’s team”. Guidelines for Committee on publication ethics “Discuss against a partial retraction and argue that the main objective is the correction of the literature rather than a mechanism to punish the authors,” she added.
Erratum also indicates that Xiaoling Cao has been deleted as an author. As the newspaper was published, the listed affiliation of Cao was with the Ihuman Institute, which is part of the University of Shanghaitech in China.
Phelan told us that the authors discovered that Cao had “committed a fault” during the original study and was responsible for the deleted aspects of the document, therefore “is no longer qualified for paternity”. She said Cao “has since left” Shanghaitech. For more details, Phelan referred us to university, which did not respond to a request for comments.
CAO did not respond to our request for comments and is not listed as a researcher on the Ihuman Institute website. The corresponding authors, Zhi-Jie Liu and Tian Hua, did not respond to our request for comments either.
Like a retraction watch? You can do a Tax deductible contribution to support our workFollow us on x Or Blueskylike us on FacebookFollow us On LinkedinAdd us to your RSS playeror subscribe to our Daily digest. If you find a retraction that is Not in our databaseyou can Let us know here. For comments or comments, send us an email to (Protected by e-mail).
Treatment…
Success! You are on the list.
Oops! There was an error and we could not treat your subscription. Please recharge the page and try again.