A controversial 2012 paper on the effects of genetically modified (GM) maize and the herbicideย glyphosateย on tumour growth in rats โ a paper later retracted by the journal โ has beenย republished, with minor modifications, in another journal, Environmental Sciences Europe.
When the paper by French molecular biologist Gilles-รric Sรฉralini and colleagues first appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology, it prompted many letters to the journal criticising the quality of data and their interpretation.ย Sรฉraliniโs team has said that this retraction was an example ofย censorship of research, but the retracted paper isย still availableย from the journalโs website. It is normal practice for retracted papers to remain available, but they areย marked โretractedโย to alert readers.
In my opinion, rather than retract the paper, the Editor-in-Chief should have published the complete dataset as part of an editorial note of concern, so that everyone can make up their own minds.
As the republished paper contains the same tables and figures as the original one (some of the figure numbering has been changed, and some of the text has been modified), the same criticisms made of the original paper can be made of the republished version.ย Perhaps what is most disappointing is that the authors are republishing the same figures that previously appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology. The original paper was published in September 2012, so the intervening years could have been used to generate more, and better, data.
Share this article
Instead of performing new experiments, in which more control animals were included, the animals were randomised and treated in an unbiased and blinded fashion, the results analysed with robust statistics, and the full dataset provided in the supplementary material, the authors have repackaged the same data as before, but have found a journal with lower standards for publication.
Read the full, original article:ย Sรฉralini study is given new life, but whereโs the newย data?
