Editor's Note
Papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals are rarely retracted, at a rate estimated to be about four retractions for every 10,000 articles (Brainard and You 2018. Science: doi: 10.1126/science.aav8384). The retraction cited in this AHPA Science Alert is of an article published in 2014 that purported to show that the use of DNA barcoding is more effective and significantly less expensive than traditional morphology-based tools for plant species identification in vegetative surveys. As of the October 27 date of the retraction, however, the journal’s editor “no longer has confidence in the validity of the data reported in this article.”
 
This retraction was instigated “at the request of the corresponding author,” Ken Thompson, when he developed concerns with the data availability, and could not confirm validity of the data included in the article. The notice provides some specific details on these concerns, and states that the article’s claim “regarding the use of these data as a suitable barcode could be considered questionable.”
 
The retraction notice reports that Thompson agrees to this retraction, but that the article’s co-author, Steven Newmaster, “has not responded to any correspondence from the Editor or publisher about this retraction.”
 
Two articles have been published in the journal Science in the last several months that provide a thorough narrative of Thompson’s efforts. See M. Enserink. June 15, 2021. doi: 10.1126/science.abk0016 (“When his suspicions went unanswered, this biologist decided to disavow his own study”); and C. Piller. October 28, 2021. doi: 10.1126/science.acx9500 (“DNA barcoding paper retracted after its first author flags serious problems”).
Ken A. Thompson · Steven G. Newmaster

Published online: 27 October 2021
© Springer Nature B.V. 2021
 
Retraction to: Biodiversity and Conservation 23:1411–1424 (2014): https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0672-z

The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the request of the corresponding author. Concerns were raised regarding the data sources and reproducibility. Post-publication review of the article confirmed concerns with the data availability, and the validity of the data included in the article could not be confirmed, specifically:

  • The authors have been unable to present a list of species analyzed, locality details, voucher specimens and GenBank accession numbers of ITS and rbcl genes of more than 200 samples studied.
  • It appears that sequences were neither uploaded to Genbank nor to the BOLD system at the time of the study. It does appear that sequences related to this article have been uploaded to Genbank in September 2020, but as this happened six years after publication and no voucher information is presented in the article, post-publication review was unable to confirm whether these sequences were indeed derived from the research described in this article.
  • The article does not appear to provide barcoding gaps between inter-specific and intraspecific divergences among the studied material, thus the claim regarding the use of these data as a suitable barcode could be considered questionable.

These findings were in agreement with the corresponding author Dr. Ken A. Thompsons’s concerns. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the validity of the data reported in this article. Author Ken A. Thompson agrees to this retraction.
Author Steven G. Newmaster has not responded to any correspondence from the Editor or publisher about this retraction. 
2021 Annual Fund Sponsors: