I have just spotted a correction to A. Centrone, E. Penzo, M. Sharma, J. W. Myerson, A. M. Jackson, N. Marzari, and F. Stellacci, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008, 105, 9886–9891.
To quote:
Correction for “The role of nanostructure in the wetting behavior of mixed-monolayer-protected metal nanoparticles,” by A. Centrone, E. Penzo, M. Sharma, J.W. Myerson, A. M. Jackson, N. Marzari, and F. Stellacci, which appeared in issue 29, July 22, 2008, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (105:9886–9891; first published July 10, 2008; 10.1073/pnas.0803929105).
The authors note that Fig. 1 appeared incorrectly. The scanning tunneling microscopy image shown in the left inset has been replaced. The corrected figure and its legend appear below. This error does not affect the conclusions of the article.
Updated 3 November 2013
Data re-use warrants correction at PNAS
March 25, 2013 by ferniglab
I am not sure to what extent this ‘correction’ solves the ‘insoluble contradiction’:
http://raphazlab.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/insolublecontradiction/
Perhaps after all we will indeed be overrun by rabbits popping out at alarming (but regular) frequency of the magician’s hat. Luckily, I have some good recipes.
“Luckily, I have some good recipes.”
Eeekkk!
Yes, I can see why this would horrify you – but what do you suggest in the event of the magician’s hat going out of control?
[…] « Data re-use warrants correction at PNAS: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil […]
Hmmm…something like this perhaps?
http://melissadixson.typepad.com/.a/6a01053659f647970b0120a5571d5e970b-pi
A sculpture by someone I interacted with online. It is of course quite possible he made it before he encountered me – but for obvious reasons I like to believe I was the inspiration (although I am sure I was not the inspiration for your post!).
The fate of that rabbit is probably not too different to that of a normal scientist when they point out that the emperor has no clothes.
[…] A subject of a previous posting (and here), an image from a Nature Materials paper is re-used for a different experiment in a […]
[…] “Re-use of “stripes”“, “Correct correction?” and “Data re-use warrants correction at PNAS: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil“. In my post Chalk and Cheese, I highlighted an exemplary retraction by a physicist. It is […]
[…] of an image being re-used to describe a different experiment, which so far has resulted in a correction. MIT have got back to me stating that they don’t have a report for me yet (I guess Friday was […]
[…] There have been corrections at some journals, including one at PNAS where data were re-used to describe a completely different experiment (here and here). […]
[…] 2006 (tutto fermo dal 2010?). Nel frattempo, la controversia sulle sue particelle d’oro a (presunte) strisce per molecole terapeutiche continua dal […]
[…] fares peer review? Same as ever, very uneven. This summer saw yet another paper on so-called “Stripy nanoparticles” published in ACS Nano. Those following this saga will look at the data and […]
[…] education. Update 3 November 2013 the re-used figures have been the subject of corrections, see here and […]
[…] 3 November 2013 Cases 1 and 5 have been subject to a correction in the relevant […]
[…] These instances included re-using a figure in a subsequent paper to describe a completely different experiment. It is well worth noting that two of these instances of data re-use resulted in corrections, albeit after a degree of pressure was placed on editors (see here and here) […]
[…] in different articles. This eventually led to two corrections, one at Nature Materials and one at PNAS. An EPFL investigation was triggered, opened, and, eventually, following the report of an […]