Retracted, Republished, but Not Re-reviewed

A once-retracted study about the health effects of GMO maize was not peer reviewed before it was republished, as its lead author claimed.

By | June 30, 2014

WIKIMEDIA, TONELast week, a 2012 Food and Chemical Toxicology paper that had found GMO maize linked to a higher risk of tumors and mortality in rats—and which was retracted by the journal’s editors—was republished in another journal. Now, it appears, the republished paper was not peer reviewed as claimed.

Henner Hollert, the editor-in-chief of Environmental Sciences Europe, which republished the study, told Nature that there was no peer review of the second paper “because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation.” Rather, the editors who reviewed the paper only checked to make sure there was “no change in the scientific content,” Nature reported.

According to the blog Retraction Watch, “that makes it all the more mystifying why [study leader Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France] told us, in press materials and in a follow-up email, that the republished paper was peer-reviewed.”

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Edu

Edu

Posts: 10

July 1, 2014

of course, Monsanto and GMO industry will keep attacking science results that show their negative effects.....

Popular Now

  1. Running on Empty
    Features Running on Empty

    Regularly taking breaks from eating—for hours or days—can trigger changes both expected, such as in metabolic dynamics and inflammation, and surprising, as in immune system function and cancer progression.

  2. Authors Peeved by APA’s Article Takedown Pilot
  3. Athletes’ Microbiomes Differ from Nonathletes
  4. Was a Drop in CRISPR Firms’ Stock Warranted?
AAAS