An Eighth Retraction by Sames; Sezen not a Co-author

January 24th, 2007

While chemists were home for the holidays, Dalibor Sames rang in the New Year by retracting more data from the Journal of the American Chemical Society. For those of you keeping score, that makes a total of eight retractions and partial retractions for Dr. Sames & Co.

This latest move was especially surprising because Bengu Sezen was not an author on the publication. While she was listed in the acknowledgments for “helpful discussions,” that would appear to exclude any experimentation. Dr. Benjamin Lane was the first author on the paper, and his name may sound familiar to you. Lane was interviewed by Science magazine for its initial story on the Sames retractions back in March of 2006. From that article:

Benjamin Lane, a former Sames group member now working as a chemist with the pharmaceutical company Biogen in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says some of Sezen’s work has been replicated and has been used by chemists in the pharmaceutical industry. Says Lane, “She has done some good things and made an impact on the field.”

So, the plot thickens. From the newest partial retraction:

For comparison purposes, this article refers to a palladium-catalyzed arylation of free azoles in the presence of magnesium oxide, published previously in a separate communication. Although the magnesium oxide procedure has recently been found irreproducible (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 8364), this fact does not affect the conclusions of this paper. Consequently, the magnesium oxide protocol has been removed from the Supporting Information. Also, Figures S5 and S8 have been replaced with corrected versions.

The previous retraction notice also stated that MgO could not be used as a base to give product, but cited Lane’s 2005 paper as showing that both Grignard reagents (RMgBr) and Mg(HMDS)2 are appropriate bases. What exactly was retracted remains a mystery. The authors don’t offer specific details in the “addition/correction” notice, and the editors of JACS have overwritten the old supporting information so you can’t track the changes. It appears that the MgO reaction was compared against the new reactions in the paper, apparently in the context of kinetic studies. What is important—and completely ignored—is whether Lane’s paper used data from the old Sezen paper or if he repeated the previously-published experiments to generate new data.  If it turns out to be the latter, that would be odd.  And if I’m missing something obvious here, let me know.

Like its predecessors, the latest retraction also bypassed the JACS RSS feed and the daily ASAP alert e-mails. Why do the editors of JACS choose to post Sames’ retractions in this manner? By putting different information in their feeds, e-mails, and print editions, the editors are making it hard for their readers to process information. It seems to run counter to the whole idea of why the scientific literature exists.

As far as the significance of this latest retraction, here’s how I see it:

1. The development is especially bad for Dalibor Sames. He keeps his name in the news by retracting more data, and it will be hard to pin these results on Sezen because she isn’t listed as an author.

2. The fact that Sezen isn’t listed as an author in this work suggests a number of possible explanations:

i) Sezen performed these latest retracted experiments but was not credited in the paper as having done so.

ii) The “irreproducibility” goes beyond Sezen.

iii) Something happened in 2006 where this C-H activation chemistry ceased to work. For instance, the reagents they used in their lab were contaminated with a catalyst that worked and they finished that bottle. This would be the best possible explanation for everyone, but would still leave Sames on the hook for the aftermath.

iv) Experiments were sabotaged. (The use of the passive voice here is intentional.)

3. The editors of JACS, once again, have made some questionable moves. They have completely overwritten the retracted data instead of just posting the updated supporting information under the addition/correction notice. As far as I know, the generally-accepted, “standard procedure” in scientific publishing is to place a conspicuous note in the PDF file of the old publication and link to the correction notice. Furthermore, JACS has again allowed a Sames retraction to bypass their daily ASAP updates, which does a good job of making the news less visible. This practice of having addition/correction notices (which include retractions) bypass the ASAP system is not standard procedure. For instance, you can find addition/correction notices like this one on ASAP right now. In fact, there were four addition/correction notices on the JACS when when I made the last Sames-Sezen post a couple of weeks ago, and one of those had been sitting there since December 24, 2006. I have no problem with the editors sending retractions straight to the printers, but the notices should simultaneously go through the ASAP RSS feed and e-mail alerts. I mean, is there any reason they shouldn’t?

4. I have obviously lost some credibility as a blogger for missing this latest retraction. It had been out for over a week before I got the initial post up. I’ll blame JACS, but the fact of the matter is that I will have to change the way I read journals. What other important articles have I missed because they didn’t show up on ASAP?

4a. Thank you to the kind person who sent an e-mail alerting me to the retraction. It goes to show you how important blog readers are as sources of interesting info. If you see something of note, please speak up. Leave comments, use the wall, or send an e-mail. And “interesting” doesn’t necessarily mean “bad.” Pass stuff along that is remarkably good, bad, funny, strange, or inspiring. Anything goes.

Finally, in case you missed them, the Sames-Sezen retractions drew two mentions in the news this week. First, the outgoing Deputy Editor-in-Chief of C&EN, Pamela Zurer, raised an indirect reference to the case in her farewell editorial (C&EN, Jan. 22, p.5):

Misconduct in research is another complex issue the scientific community has yet to fully come to grips with. Although chemists like to think such unethical behavior is rare in our discipline, News Editor William Schulz reported on a couple of troubling cases in the past year and is digging into yet another. As I wrote in 1996, “The real question is not how often scientific misconduct occurs, or whether the scientific record is ultimately self-correcting. It is how the community behaves when faced with unpleasant allegations against one of it established members.”

Second, Nature singled out Sezen and Sames, by name, with regard to a story on the current status of some high profile cases of (alleged) scientific misconduct. Sames was clearly given a reprieve by the editors, as the section discussing the Columbia case was simply titled “Bengu Sezen”:

In March 2006, Dalibor Sames, a chemist at Columbia University in New York, withdrew two papers and part of a third from the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS).

.

Work done by graduate student Bengü Sezen, he said, couldn’t be reproduced. The work was in the field of carbon–hydrogen bond functionalization, which aims to selectively break bonds within a molecule. The case got a lot of coverage on the ever-lively chemistry blogs, and a few press outlets mentioned the issue, including Nature (440, 390–391; 2006).

.

Sames is not commenting further until an inquiry is completed, and Columbia University says that it is against its policy to “comment on the existence or non-existence of any internal investigation into allegations of research misconduct”. But Sezen has vigorously defended herself in e-mails to the editor of JACS and the press.

So, that’s that.  Next time on this “ever-lively chemistry blog”: something less unhappy.

Previous Comments

  1. B* Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pm I think the most troublesome thing here is that JACS didn’t deign to run this through the normal procedure for retractions/corrections. One might make excuses for why this is so, but ultimately, it leaves open the possibility that somewhere along the line, someone at JACS (potentially) decided to “keep it quiet”. This ducking of responsibility (to the readership, to other authors published in JACS, to the scientific community in general) to save face is ultimately more damaging than any perceived fault on JACS’ part about the whole situation. That being said, it obviously won’t keep anyone from sending their next JACSable article…
  2. Wolfie Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 8:35 pm So, it seems, this is no longer the search only for scientific truth, but for the political one. May become even more difficult, Paul. What will happen to Sames ? Have they forced him to file that 8th retraction ? But how could they. Has he done it because he felt the article was not right and he just wanted to stay honest ? Oh. So, why has he done it (keeping his own interests in mind), if Sezen was not involved ?
  3. Anonymous Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm You are a patriarchal sexist pig for holding female chemists to the same standards as male chemists. Millennia of repression must be repaid. Female chemists must be granted automatic tenure. Anybody who looks at them cockeyed gets brought up on rape charges.White females chemists are are, of course, excluded from the above unless they are also lesbians, have HIV, are crippled, or are single mothers (in which case they need never show up on campus at all). Female two-fers or better only.An ethnic studies steering committee has been assembled to debate transvestites, sex changes, and cases of testicular feminization.
  4. excimer Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 8:45 pm I have obviously lost some credibility as a blogger for missing this latest retraction.Uh, The Chem Blog’s last post was about boners, and my last postwas about a bottle I was looking at. You might be less, shall we say, poetic(?) than us, but you’re one of the few bloggers I read that still covers these (and, like, other important?) issues. Mazel Tov.In other news, we should petition the ACS journals to put retrations into the ASAP email alerts. I don’t think it would be THAT big of a deal to do so, but then again, getting them in my inbox five days a week seems to be a difficult task for them too.
  5. Klug Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 8:48 pm I got the “less unhappy thing”. Check out this complete moron running a demonstration (unless you’ve seen it before.)http://web.archive.org/web/20080222020048/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH0fvLhO-fQ&eurl=
  6. Tex Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pm What are normal the normalprocedures for retractions/corrections? As far as I am aware it involves writing to the editor to inform them of the problem and the correction and addition is then put together in the journal production division. There is no peer review. When papers are retracted there is usually a statement to that effect – sometimes with reasons, sometimes without. I understand with the Sames/Sezen situation that there is something fishy going on (eight retractions is a huge number) – but until (or if) all of the relevant details emerge, we cannot know for sure what occurred and where the blame lies (of which there is plenty to go around). However, I do not think there is a conspiracy to hush things up at JACS – not all papers appear on ASAP (in fact you can request that your paper does not appear on ASAP), and so it is reasonable to assume that neither do all the additions/corrections. Also, and I must admit my ignorance here, do any additions/corrections go to RSS or e-mail alerts? Whether they should or not is a different issue, but I do not believe there is a deliberate cover up by the JACS editor by not including them. Some additions/corrections are as simple as a mislabled figure/table, or perhaps incorrect stereochemistry that was subsequently secured by an X-ray, the list goes on. In fact a good fraction of JACS (and other leading ACS publications) have at least one addition/correction.I gather from the tone of several bloggers on this Sames/Sezen debacle, that they would like to see some sort of action. However, until the investigation at Columbia is complete, the details of what happened, and when, are unlikely to be available. In contrast to others, I firmly believe that there is an on-going investigation. Institutions can be have their federal funding suspended if they fail to investigate alleged scientific misconduct. I do not want imply that Sames should get a free pass – as PI he is ultimately responsible for what comes out of his lab, and what is published, but without hard evidence I will not condemn him at this point.
  7. Chemgeek Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 10:25 pm Part of the reason so many bloggers have really sunk their teeth into this topic is part tabloidy sensationalism, but mostly we don’t like being lied to. Some of us depend on accuracy in reviewed journals to make a living. Add to that, the fact that C-H bond activation is a pretty big deal (I’d get no attention if I published fake data for a new way to protect an alcohol with a TMS group) and you get a lot of people really ticked off. Mistakes are possible, but this whole fiasco is really starting to stink on a lot of different levels.
  8. Wolfie Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 10:25 pm There has been no sex involved yet, except for the alleged Sames-Sezen affair. Was that the reason it all has been so unhappy ?
  9. Anoymouse Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 11:07 pm From the C&E News farewell article:Although chemists like to think such unethical behavior is rare in our discipline, News Editor William Schulz reported on a couple of troubling cases in the past year and is digging into yet another.What is the other one that is currently being investigated by C&E news? Is it the Catalysis Community’s stepping on each other’s toes which raised a lot of hackles and triggered a departmental investigation?
  10. milkshake Says:
    January 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm The most charitable scenario would be that this just turned up during the post-Sezen house cleanup – and that the procedure actualy works to some degree but the issue was with the method robustness and yield.(So it would be about sloppiness and wishful thinking – not outright fabrication).
  11. McPostdoc Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 1:32 am Huh? What’s the controversy here?Sames published a paper which featured some old results to make a mechanistic argument – and they were labelled as previous results and cited appropriately. The new reactions, done by Lane and Brown, are apparently not affected and would seem to be reproducible. The correction was simply submitted to indicate that the previous results included in the paper – done by our good friend Bengu Sezen, are no longer valid (of course, we already knew that), and to point out that despite this, the mechanistic argument still holds.So, this paper cites work that was withdrawn, and for the sake of completeness, Sames issues a correction to this paper just to note that. Why exactly is this news?
  12. eugene Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 1:49 am I second what McPostdoc said.Also, I never read ASAP. I find it useless to keep on top of stuff one month in advance and check ASAP alerts everyday. I’d rather sit down one day of the week and read the issue, where the articles would have proper page numbers if I wanted to file them for later use.
  13. Paul Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 4:10 am I agree that this latest retraction could be nothing, but we don’t really know because we don’t know what exactly was retracted. If the old procedure was just the old procedure (no optimization or updates), why would you write it again instead of just referencing it? And numerical data was used, otherwise Figures S5 and S8 wouldn’t need to be updated. Was this “old” data or new data (obtained by re-running the reactions). I don’t know, but is it unreasonable for me to speculate that if someone was doing a kinetic study and the reactions are easy to set up, that they would want to perform all of the reactions being compared under the same conditions? Usually, this would include all of the reactions being conducted by the same scientist. Is there a sentence in the paper that says “this is old data taken from reference #n”?Since Dr. Lane seems to have no qualms with speaking to the press, perhaps he might even leave a short explanation here. Any such elucidation would be welcome.
  14. milkshake Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am There is a funny excursion into Czech history (on the subject of touch-ups reflecting the ever-changing sociohistoric circumstances): When commies seized power in February 1948 the top commie announced their victory to the assempled workers from a balcony. It was bitterly cold and the party boss borrowed a fur hat from a comrade standing on the balcony with him. Few years later the comrade felt in disgrace, he was purged and he was disappeared. Of course, he disappeared from the historic balcony photograph also. The picture was in every czech history textbook but the only thing remaining from the poor fellow was the hat that his boss took from him.
  15. tinkerbolt Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 11:11 am This paper was actually cited in the literature as containing a faulty experimental section. An Italian group spent time and money trying to reproduce what was written, so it is a big deal. Why did it take Sames so long to make this correction after another group basically retracted that information for him. And about the asaps system, perhaps the editor of JACS should have atleast been nominated for Villain of the Year.
  16. Anon Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 11:23 am Take it from someone who knows…this is not an example of widespread fraud. Lane and Brown are very competent (and honest) chemists. This retraction is proof that Columbia’s investigation is progressing and is being overly cautious to eradicate all traces of Ms. Sezen’s errors. I’m confident that in the near future, they will issue a decision that will clearly condemn and punish the guilty, and will absolve innocent bystanders like Godula, Lane and Brown.Paul, I’m sure that you can track my IP address, so you have a pretty good idea of my identity. I appreciate you not sharing it with the rest of your readers.
  17. excimer Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm Why do I have this strange feeling I know exactly who Anon is?
  18. eugene Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pm “Why do I have this strange feeling I know exactly who Anon is?”Let’s take off that warewolf mask and find out!Why, it’s old man Breslow! And he would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for us pesky kids.
  19. tinkerbolt Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 12:47 pm This isn’t about Lane, Brown and Godula. It’s about Sames and Sezen, so trying to bring more respected researchers into this will not be an effective smokescreen to get everyone to hush up. It’s obvious that either Sames or Sezen is responsible for what’s in the supporting info. There’s no reason for Lane to add something that doesn’t work to something that works. And Science only printed the nice things Lane had to say about Bengu. Perhaps he made less flattering comments that they chose not to use, afterall, Sames had a pending review on C-H activation in Science. How bad would it look if the community got the impression that just another passerby on the sidewalk was responsible for the scientific content of their publication. Sames and Breslow are not comparable. Breslow immediately reported his retractions and sent a letter to C&E News. Sames tried to skirt the issue in hopes that it would die down, but it hasn’t. Further, Breslow’s career wasn’t dependent on that student’s results, but Sames’ name doesn’t have as much glitter not that his knock-out punch turned out to be a pre-pubescent tickle.
  20. eugene Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 1:08 pm I wasn’t really going for the Breslow retractions comparison. It was more of a Scooby-Doo comparison.
  21. Paul Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 1:13 pm God, I loved that show.
  22. My Lord, My Guide Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 10:05 pm So do I.
  23. Organic Chemistry Says:
    January 25th, 2007 at 10:52 pm I know this is #8, but it still a very tough thing for someone to go through.
  24. Paul Says:
    January 31st, 2007 at 8:45 am All but the abstract of Sezen’s Ph.D. thesis has been wiped from the UMI/ProQuest online database. Did anybody download the PDF before they got to it?
  25. Paul Says:
    February 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm Tinkerbolt, what did you just write? The spamguard ate it and I hit the wrong button.
  26. eugene Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 am It probably wasn’t that important. Let’s have a hard-hitting post on which journal is better: Andjewandte or JACS. All the readers can weigh in. Also, we can talk about Andjewandte’s policy of arbitrarily ranking papers based on reviewers’ one to five scale of how ‘exciting’ the research is. I like the passive aggressive method of JACS, where the reviewers have to say that “the paper has relevance to the larger community”, more.
  27. Paul Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm The answer is JACS, hands down. Does anyone think otherwise?
  28. tinkerbolt Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 1:48 pm I don’t have time right now, but there’s a very interesting acknowledgements section in regards to Sames in a Columbia dissertation. If you like passive-aggressiveness then stay-tuned. In regards to JACS and Angewandte, I find that Angewandte tends to publish more novel work. It’s difficult to compare the two because Angewandte in general is only reviews and communications.
  29. K Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm I do. I think ACIE (for whatever reason) seems to attract papers from higher profile groups in the US. I also prefer the front ‘opinion/correspondence/mini-reviews’ section that ACIE has.It seems to me that the story arc of a program is OL to get started, ACIE to make a splash and JACS to establish the nitty-gritty of what you just did.From a personal bias point of view, I tend to believe synthetic papers written in JACS more than ACIE. I don’t know why that is. Between JJLC and Sm/Sz, both have egg on their faces.
  30. eugene Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm I think you can compare Andjewantde and JACS if you ignore the reviews from the former, and the full articles from the latter. That gets rid of about 10-20% of content, and the rest is communications for the both of them. Although some papers in JACS are ‘eh… (shrug)’, the ones in Andjewandte that are ‘eh… (shrug)’ (fewer than in JACS), are from more high profile groups, so the disparity stands out more and you start to wonder if name recognition plays a role on some sort of subconscious level with reviewers in Andjewandte.
  31. tinkerbolt Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm http://web.archive.org/web/20080222020048/http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview_page/3203751/17
  32. Wolfie Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 8:23 pm Eugene, do you know Frau Antje ? It’s the one who sells cheese from Holland on TV, and she is usually very nice…
  33. Wolfie Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm Getting serious again, I just looked at Sames’s publication list (poor him). In 2006, he had papers in Science, Jester’s American Community Journal, Anjewandtje, and PNAS. Do you really think he will lose his tenure ? I still think the more urgent problem is the Ph.D. at HARVARD.
  34. eugene Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm The Science paper was a review though. Doesn’t really count as an official research paper unless you’re not paying attention to closely. Which I suppose most people don’t when they look at publication lists. Regarding names of journals, PNAS has to be one of the most unfortunately named ones. Try saying all the letter together really fast. Yeah, you get the idea…Now I know that the folks in charge might not want equality for women in the sciences, but to have such blatant and crude advertising of the fact? For shame… How about a renaming to the Annals of the National Academy of Sciences? At least that’s gender neutral.P.S. Wolfie, no I have not heard of Frau Antje. But, not having access to German television (or American television for that matter) will do that for you.
  35. eugene Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm #31,Naaaah, that’s way too ambiguous to be directed at any one person, so I’m going to have to guess that you know the back story there. Sounds like something about half the people could put into a dissertation one way or another. A favourite variation of mine is where they say: “thank you especially to my family, the only ones who stood by me and supported me during this trying time in my life”. Some PIs are a bit thick though, so they don’t get it.Of course, if I was the PI getting that treatment, I’d probably still write a good reference letter. There is not much you can do if the person hates you except be honest about their chemistry abilities. Being vindictive would probably make me look petty. Since PIs are usually smarter than the general public (and therefore less petty and vindictive), there is a lot of wiggle room to be passive aggressive to them and get away with it. Hypothetically, I’d let my students get away with it (unless I tried really, really hard not to be a jerk).
  36. Wolfie Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 10:47 pm Eugene, are you Wh/ites/ides?(Edited with minor revisions)
  37. Wolfie Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm I apoligize foir my wive’s stupid comments
  38. eugene Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 12:59 am No, I’m not George Wh/ite/sides. If I was, Paul’s fondness for blogging would disappear. As it is, he can see my IP address and my relative location, and is therefore not worried.See, all you had to do was ask. I would of answered you half a year ago that I wasn’t G.W., but you kept insinuating it and never asked. Therefore, I didn’t answer. In fact, just to make Paul miffed, Whit/e/sides was giving a talk a while ago here, but I decided I had something better to do so I missed it. Since everybody came to the talk, I thought no one would notice my absence in the commotion and I was right.(Edited with minor revisions)
  39. blinded with science Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 7:32 am This is what happens when you mix personal/work.
  40. European Chemist Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 9:01 am All in all, this whole thing is just making Sames look really bad. I do agree that we should wait for further information before drawing hasty conclusions, but how long should an enquiry about retracted papers and one student on the spotlight last for? I mean, are they going to keep this on until 2009 only to announce, discretely, “we have found no compelling evidence of fraud”?In French (not my mother tongue), one would say “Ça commence à bien faire”.
  41. Shrug Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 9:46 am Quoth the Eugene:
    “Since PIs are usually smarter than the general public (and therefore less petty and vindictive), there is a lot of wiggle room to be passive aggressive to them and get away with it. Hypothetically, I’d let my students get away with it (unless I tried really, really hard not to be a jerk).”I call craplogic! I agree with the premise: PI’s are usually smarter than the general public. But pettiness and vindictiveness have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence in the traditional sense. Being un-petty and not vindictive depends strictly on emotional maturity and humility, and I would argue (fervently) that the majority of PI’s usually have less of those characteristics than the general public.Just sayin’.
  42. tinkerbolt Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pm I’d like to thank advisors A, B and C. Now let me write a paragragh about how great advisors A and B are, but not C.
  43. Anonymouse Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 12:54 pm Having looked a little closer at the thesis that Tinkerbolt linked to, I see that one section of the thesis doesn’t fit with the others. He also listed D. Sames as an advisor and not a committee member. One might surmise from these facts that he was a former Sames PhD student who finished his degree with Professor Nick Turro. The venom in the last paragraph it appears was meant for his original advisor (not Turro) and one or more of his group members at the time.In fact the student who wrote this acknowledgment was an author on a JACS paper and poster with Sames and Sezen.I am actually very happy to see that being asked to leave by Sames did not keep him from getting his PhD. I had been afraid that the student(s)previously mentioned had to take a masters instead.
  44. eugene Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pm We’re not allowed to write out G.W.? Oh no! Sorry. Well, I know now I guess.#43 There are some examples of people leaving a group here and getting a PhD with someone else. Why you would want to mention your first advisor anywhere, I don’t know. I guess in the acknowledgements to get a dig in at them.
  45. Paul Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm People are allowed to write about him, I just don’t want people coming to this site by Googling his name. Nothing was removed, so I think this is on the up-and-up.
  46. tinkerbolt Says:
    February 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm This one is interesting because Bengu is acknowledged as helping with organic synthesis.http://web.archive.org/web/20080222020048/http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/preview_page/3159766/9I’m not so sure I’d want to be taught by her. Once all the dissertations from 2006 are posted it will be interesting to see if anyone acknowledges Bengu. In particular, certain people are known to have worked with her(see publications). For example, will Godula offer any thanks to her for help with techniques(assuming she helped train him) and risk being implicated or will he stand by the advisor.
  47. Wolfie Says:
    February 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pm #39, you are right. You should never mix desires and facts. But how about if Lawrence S. was right in the end ?
  48. aa Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm paul,you should really change the title, it is so misleading.
    This time, it is not retraction at all.
  49. Paul Says:
    February 6th, 2007 at 7:02 pm While most of the paper was left intact, a procedure and data were removed. An equivalent statement is that the authors retracted these sections and that the paper itself was partially retracted. If anything in this story is misleading, it is the fact that these sorts of items are published as “Additions/Corrections” in JACS.
  50. tinkerbolt Says:
    February 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am I’m curious to know why they put this procedure in the paper if it’s unnecessary for the paper. Sames has been purging intellectuals from the group since 2002 because of the finicky nature of his science-fiction. Why taint a perfectly good paper with this procedure that has caused controversey within the group when that procedure is not necessary for the subject of the paper anyways. And Bengu didn’t write the paper so you can’t blame it on her.
  51. Noel O’Blog Says:
    April 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am Correction/Retraction Notice…If you browsing the Table of Contents (TOC) of an ACS journal online, and you come across an article which has subsequently been corrected or retracted, why doesn’t the ACS provide a link to the retraction?…
  52. PH-Meter Says:
    May 24th, 2007 at 10:51 am Sames’s NIH Grant is eventually hurt.C-H BOND ACTIVATION IN SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIC MOLECULES (SAMES, DALIBOR – 2001)Grant # Award Year Award Amount, USD
    1R01GM060326-01A2 2001 $237,308
    5R01GM060326-02 2002 $235,476
    5R01GM060326-03 2003 $235,476
    5R01GM060326-04 2004 $235,476
    5R01GM060326-05 2005 $235,476
    3R01GM060326-05S1 2006 $79,829
  53. Tex Says:
    May 24th, 2007 at 1:18 pm pH-Meter:The 2006 number is for a supplement that is in addition to the main grant.
  54. mederic Says:
    August 21st, 2007 at 5:04 pm Cordova has been given a bollocking in the latest Synlett issue. Sorry wasn’t sure where to put this, the Sames thread seemed the best bet
  55. Prof_D Says:
    December 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pm Why does the “January 24th, 2007 at 8:36 pm” Response to the Sames-Sezen issue, from Anonymous, linking to >, continue to appear on your site? Is there not a reasonable editorial standard, that if a posting has nothing to do with the topic/thread, we need not be distracted by it? Otherwise, with regard for you efforts.

One Response to “An Eighth Retraction by Sames; Sezen not a Co-author”

  1. Unpacking Nature’s ‘Where are they now?’ | Adventures in Ethics and Science Says:

    [...] Sames: As noted on ChemBark, Sames just retracted another paper on which Sezen wasn't an author, which merits some discussion [...]


Leave a Reply

*