In 2001, within weeks after the publication of the Science ’01 Silencing paper, one of Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s colleagues in the field identified and communicated with Dr. Tessier-Lavigne regarding an obvious error in the paper (a duplication51 with shifting52 of a neuronal growth cone image in Figure 2D). Dr. Tessier-Lavigne stated to the colleague in writing that he would take corrective action, including both contacting the journal and attempting to issue a correction. While Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did confirm that a “correct” image of the neuronal growth cone at the 1-hour mark existed within a responsible postdoc’s internal records, he did not contact the journal and he did not attempt to issue an erratum, which is inadequate. In discussion with the Scientific Panel, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne has expressed regret about this incident but has not been able to provide an explanation for his inaction beyond forgetting. The Panel has noted that personally confirming that an accurate image exists does not address the need to publicly remediate the scientific record, and Dr. Tessier-Lavigne agrees with this. Забыл, ака от создателей «собака сьела». Теперь про другую статью: after […] discussions with the journal Science, that journal concluded that a correction was appropriate for both Science ’01 papers. Dr. Tessier-Lavigne prepared drafts of these corrections and coordinated with the journal from the fall of 2015 through the summer of 2016 to a point where he reasonably believed the corrections were going into pre-print. But the corrections were never published and, following a final inquiry on June 22, 2016, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne ceased to follow up. In late-2022, as more recent events were unfolding, Science issued a statement indicating that the failure to publish the corrections was due to an error on its part. However, as Dr. Tessier-Lavigne has acknowledged in discussions with the Panel, he was also independently responsible for ensuring that the corrections were made, despite the journal also failing to discharge its own responsibility in this regard. Dr. Tessier-Lavigne has not been able to provide an adequate explanation to the Panel for why he ceased pursuing the publication of the two corrections beyond his busy schedule with his transition into the Stanford presidency at the time and his inference that, because Cell had deemed it unnecessary to issue a correction, perhaps the issue was not of enduring concern to Science. To date, the scientific record remains uncorrected. Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s planned forthcoming retraction of the papers will remedy that. Т.е. сначала это not of enduring concern, а теперь чтобы загладить ошибки надо полностью отозвать статью? Угар In March 2021, concerns were again raised on PubPeer about the Science ’01 Binding paper regarding the lack of corrective activity in the approximately five years since the original issues had been identified on PubPeer.This prompted Dr. Tessier-Lavigne, in consultation with others regarding the language, to draft an e-mail to Science’s editorial staff inquiring about the status of the unpublished corrections to both Science ’01 papers, but he did not transmit the e-mail. In discussion with the Panel, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not have an explanation for deciding to not follow up on the corrections beyond that he has a practice of drafting many e-mails to see how they read but only sends a portion of them and that he concluded the communication was unnecessary. Не, ну я тоже люблю тратить по пару часов на написание постов, которые потом не публикуются. Тру стори. На этом вроде шутки заканчиваются и дальше о серьезном: