The general advisory nature of the Careers article 'How to survive as a whistle-blower' (Nature 532, 405; 2016) meant that it purposely did not discuss the case used as an example in detail. For clarity, it should be noted that as a result of the university's initial internal inquiry into the case, the co-authors were recommended to submit a list of errors to the journal in question. The editor-in-chief of the journal ultimately elected to retract the paper. In addition, a subsequent external inquiry concluded that although there had been misconduct by one researcher, there was no misconduct by the travelling supervisor referred to in the article, and there was no intentional wrongdoing. It also found that some of the allegations were not substantiated.
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1038/nj7599-405a
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erratum: Clarification. Nature 538, 281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7624-281b
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7624-281b
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.