Research integrity

Voinnet’s sidekick Dunoyer welcomed at Nature Plants, despite retractions and admitted misconduct

The Olivier Voinnet scandal of almost two decades-long research misconduct and data manipulations has reached its logical conclusion. The French plant pathogen researcher, and everyone who helped him manipulating and publishing dishonest (and occasionally retracted) papers was either forgiven or declared as fully reformed. The siRNA-co-discoverer Voinnet who, cynically put, was too big to fail, remained professor at ETH Zürich and kept his ERC funding. He is meanwhile back to publishing in exactly the same elite journals where he had to retract and correct papers for manipulations. Of all his “partners-in-crime”, only his dependent right-hand man (or sidekick) Patrice Dunoyer was ever investigated, and as punishment suspended for an entire month by his French employer CNRS. His lab was about to be dissolved, but the Nature Publishing Group came to rescue and accepted his paper (Incarbone et al 2017) just in the nick of time (it’s not even Dunoyer’s only recent publishing success, another one is Montavon et al 2017 in Nucleic Acids Research). The accompanying editorial in Nature Plants, written by the chief editor Chris Surridge can only be described as bizarre, and is titled: “Giving research a sporting chance“. Surridge, who apparently sees data manipulation as a professional sports in race with doping detectives, wrote:

“Dunoyer has been a long-time colleague and collaborator of Olivier Voinnert, and recently a number of their studies, three with Dunoyer as first author, have been retracted while a number more have had formal corrections published to address problems with presented data. However, these instances were investigated by the CNRS and Dunoyer served a temporary suspension as a result. We therefore treated the study we received as we would any other. It was accepted following two rounds of review, during which it was seen by four reviewers. The published paper contains substantial supplementary information (SI). Along with 10 additional figures, there are a further 12 pages presenting the raw data from which the presented figures have been assembled”.

Why Surridge misspelled Voinnet’s name as “Voinnert” is unclear, maybe he barely knows this French star academic and his Photoshop adventures, or maybe the Nature Plants Editor-in-Chief did so deliberately to trick the internet search results. His editorial is open access after all, unlike Dunyoer’s comeback-paper Incarbone et al 2017, which is paywalled, due to which data integrity sleuths will have some tough time getting access to it.

Ethics and integrity

Dunoyer, a cheating sidekick of a cheater

Dunoyer’s entire research career was bound to Voinnet. He only obtained his own lab at the CNRS Institut de Biologie Moléculaire des Plantes (IBMP) in Strasbourg, because Voinnet moved from there to hold a professorship at ETH Zürich in 2010, taking bulk of his lab personnel with him to Switzerland. Dunoyer stayed behind to run that lab as his master’s trusted custodian. In 2015, after the misconduct findings by ETH and CNRS, Voinnet was banned from CNRS for 2 years and forced to relinquish his Strasbourg lab. This made Dunoyer the official principal investigator of an inherited lab. That lab however was about to be dissolved in April 2017, in the wake of an evaluation travesty, as I exclusively reported. The current Nature Plants paper, accompanied by another one in Nucleic Acids Research (Montavon et al 2017) saved Dunoyer’s career and his misconduct-ridden IBMP from being ridiculed, or worse, defunded. It now makes sense why a CNRS senior executive wrote to me to call me an “idiot” after I reported about the Dunoyer lab dissolution.

The recent Dunoyer paper was published because the chief editor assumed if they make a cheating researcher provide original gel images, there will be no way he can ever manipulate data. This attitude is disarmingly naive, one really wonders if Surridge ever worked in a lab when getting his PhD in biophysics. No science is so easy to fake as the image-dependent life science is, especially when you have direct access to lab experiments and image acquisition. Nobody will ever find out what you actually loaded on your gels or how much of it, if you know how to do the gels and the controls and how to acquire the images “properly”. There won’t be even any need for Photoshop then, a recourse of dishonest group leaders stuck in the office without a “trusted” hand in the lab.

Normally of course, journal editors and reviewers must assume that the scientists acted honestly and correctly, when reviewing their manuscript. Only that we know it is rather different with Dunoyer. This Strasbourg-based CNRS researcher retracted no less than three papers as first author (Dunoyer et al, Plant Cell, 2004Dunoyer et al, EMBO J, 2010; Dunoyer et al, Science 2010), and admitted data manipulations in another retraction he co-authored (Sansregret et al, PLoS Pathogens). Dunoyer also admitted to data manipulation in several corrections he had with his master (Dunoyer, Plant J, 2002; Dunoyer et al, Nature Genetics 2006; Navarro et al, Science, 2006; Schott et al, EMBO J, 2012).  In his new comeback paper in Nature Plants, Dunoyer quotes from another corrected publication from the Voinnet lab, which he co-authored:

“In plants, RNAi is the main antiviral defence mechanism. It relies on the production by the RNaseIII Dicer-like 4 (DCL4), or its surrogate DCL2, of 21 and 22 nucleotide (nt) virus-derived (v) siRNAs, respectively 7”

That reference 7 is the notorious paper Deleris et al, 2006, which the already benevolent and apparently biased investigative commission at ETH Zürich destined for retraction, due to gross data manipulations in this paper. The elite journal Science has instead decided to correct it and not to retract (see my article here), because, as the then-Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt later put it, a retraction would have hurt the careers of the tenured CNRS researcher Angelique Deleris and other co-authors. But now the Nature Plants peer reviewers accepted that same heavily manipulated and retraction-destined opus as a scientific gospel.

Non, je ne regrette rien

The data manipulator Dunoyer barely ever admitted any guilt, he has never shown remorse about what he did. He and Voinnet kept correcting papers, admitting only what was already known, with PubPeer sleuths posting afterwards evidence of new manipulations in the same papers or even in the corrections. Their last retraction, for Dunoyer et al 2010, was from October 2016 (see my report here). Not even two month later, he submitted his current manuscript to Nature Plants, where he was granted the same treatment as any honest contributor. The Nucleic Acids Research paper Montavon et al 2017 was submitted in July 2016 and accepted in December 2016.

Also Voinnet himself recently placed a paper in that journal (de Felippes et al 2017), it was received in November 2016 and accepted in February 2017. This journal NAR is a new publishing venue for both French scientists, and a kind of clean slate for all parties involved. To besmirch or to adorn, up to your viewpoint. One NAR editorial board member is Irina Stancheva, a Edinburgh-based epigenetics researcher with an impressive PubPeer record. Another NAR board member is RNA-interference specialist Eric Westhof, located at IBMP’s neighbour Institut de biologie moléculaire et cellulaire (IBMC) in Strasbourg, where he coordinates the NetRNA consortium, where Dunoyer and a bunch of his creatively-minded IBMP colleagues are members under his guidance. Make your own assumptions from here.

Update 28.07.2017: Keith Fox, Senior Executive Editor at NAR and professor at
University of Southampton, denied to me that Westhof was the handling editor of either Voinnet’s or Dunoyer’s NAR paper, and declared:

“I can assure you that we were aware of the retractions that you mentioned when we received these manuscript submissions. The papers were carefully checked for any evidence of fraud and the handling editors were alerted to take extra care. We treat each paper on its own merits, and our reviewers are required to comment on whether they suspect that any of the images have been manipulated. Moreover, in one case, in the interest of transparency, the author provided us with the complete set of primary data.

We are grateful for your vigilance. If you have any specific evidence that any of these NAR papers were fraudulent, then we will thoroughly investigate the matter, as we have done on numerous other occasions. We do not assume guilt by association, we treat each paper on its own merits and found no evidence of any malpractice with these papers”.

But how was Dunyoer ever expected to learn and to reform? His place of work, the IBMP or (unofficially) The Olivier Voinnet Institute for Research Integrity in Plant Sciences, made data manipulations a standard method of their research. Even the IBMP director herself, Laurence Maréchal-Drouard, is responsible for very suspicious things found in her own papers (see my report, and this progressively growing PubPeer record). My earlier article narrated how IBMP scientists were evaluated in March 2017 by an external HCERES committee, several members of which had data manipulations in their own papers. Only one of them, Joszef Burgyan, group leader at the Hungarian Agricultural Biotechnology Center, had the decency to resign from the evaluation committee due to a band duplication in a collaboratively-authored  paper of his (Várallyay et al 2010). Yet as Burgyan told me, nobody else followed him, all those tainted evaluators commenced their tasks unabated. And the issues flagged for the papers by HCERES committee members Martin CrespiSerge DelrotAlain Tissier, or Ute Vothknecht certainly looked not better, in fact maybe even worse.

It seems, some IBMP researchers do not even understand the concept of research integrity. A tenured IBMP scientist and former PhD student of the German mitochondria researcher Roland Lill, Heike Lange, has a number of papers flagged on PubPeer for what obviously looks like duplicated western blot bands (see this report). A strange anonymous comment was recently placed under her article on PubPeer, which may or may not originate from Lange herself. Let us for the sake of argument assume Lange is indeed this comment’s author. This is what the commenter wrote:

“Obviously somebody set out to systematically screen all publications of Roland Lill – very likely a known “science journalist” , who yesterday published a nasty piece on his blog , accusing Dr. Lill for pervasive figure manipulation since 1989.

The experience of the last two years suggests that such a systematic screen will almost always detect a certain quote of erroneous figures in the publication record of almost every PI. Duplication of panels and similar issues in 8 out of more than 100 papers , each of which probably has more than 4 figures? – that is certainly not a case of systematic fraud, this is, lets face it, quite normal. Go and screen your own papers and the papers of your closest colleagues! I bed you’ll find about the same.

It’s also not surprising that the concerned figures are mostly older than 10 years. At that time, Photoshop was rather new, people were inexperienced and not sure of how to use it appropriately. (Genuine) errors occurred more often than today, also because researchers were not aware of the problem and nobody payed attention to the shape of individual bands. Don’t forget that the widespread consensus that the beautification of data (e.g. gel-splicing) is also not acceptable emerged only around 2009! Therefore it is rather unfair to measure paper from these days with todays yardstick.

Copy-paste mistakes and attempts to beautify data occur(ed) even in the best labs. Mostly by the people who make the figures, which are in most cases the people that do the experiments. In addition, some of the data are already many years old when they finally make it into a manuscript. In the end, its almost impossible for an PI to spot all such issues before publication. Are you sure that you do not find such things in your own papers? Did you check?

I am happy that in the last ten years, the scientific community, including the journals, became aware of the problem, and that strategies to prevent the publications of erroneous figures are now developed.

But the “scandal!” glamor of certain self-assigned “science journalists who seem to use pubpeer for their personal profit is not helpful. It’s disgusting.

I have a serious doubt that dividing the world in good guys and bad guys will accelerate the process. We are all trapped in pointing fingers to others, and to the past. Instead, we should agree on some definitive rules, effective from now on, and move on”.

If this is indeed written by a tenured IBMP researcher, what hope can one have for any research integrity at that institute? Rather, it is conceivable that Dunoyer was helped and assisted despite or actually because of his reserach misconduct, to protect all the others at IBMP who do exactly the same, proudly. Which again brings us to Dunoyer’s master and the former uncrowned IBMP king, Voinnet.

Voinnet: too big to fail

If Dunoyer enjoyed so much protection in Strasbourg and beyond, then think of Voinnet, who is connected through co-authorships, funding programmes  and lab personnel exchanges to the mightiest of mightiest in the international plant science community. A source once told me that Voinnet refuses to take all the blame for himself and sees many others around him responsible for the misconduct in his lab and in plant sciences in general. Which, given the bizarre practices at IBMP, this makes perfect sense. It is prudent to support Voinnet not only because he is still very powerful and well-connected, but also because he can bury many others should he suddenly have nothing to lose and free to break his ETH- and CNRS-imposed silence. Indeed, his peers by and large did not disappoint him.

Aside of whistleblowing by the US plant researcher Vicki Vance (who was attacked by her peers for just that), the plant science community remained largely silent in the face of Voinnet affair, at least publicly (with Dacheng Liang and his former advisor Rosemary White being notable exceptions, read here). News only briefly flared up when another Voinnet retraction popped up (it is 8 retractions by now, plus around 20 embarrassing corrections, see list here), and there sure won’t be another one forthcoming since the affair is closed to near-everyone’s appreciation. Back then when I tried to investigate the validity of Voinnet’s main research findings (see this report, also here), his tenured colleagues, professors and institute directors, mostly either did not answer at all, or refused to be quoted even anonymously. Many were simply afraid of Voinnet’s and his friends’ revenge, some apparently felt his research was reliable despite all the manipulations. Others openly told me that science must also have a place for researchers like Voinnet (I am not sure if this logic extended to those pushed out of science permanently for failing to publish in prestigious journals where Voinnet has published). This timidity or, one could also say, irresponsibility, led consequently to the entire Voinnet scandal being laid to rest and forgotten.  And the French RNA-interference researcher and ETH professor did not disappoint: he is by now has quietly resumed publishing.

Next to the above mentioned NAR paper, Voinnet delivered a collaborative paper at PNAS (Schalk et al 2017), a journal where he was forced by the ETH investigative committee to retract the Moissiard & Dunoyer 2006 paper for gross data manipulation. Then there was a recent paper at the journal RNA (Iki et al 2017). This journals kindly corrected an earlier Voinnet paper despite the fact that every single figure in it was manipulated (Moissiard et al 2017), see my report here. A member of RNA editorial board is coincidentally the above mentioned collaborator Westhof. By the way, Guillaume Moissiard is despite all that currently a tenured researcher at CNRS institute in Perpignan.

And then of course there is Voinnet’s Pumplin et al 2016 in The Plant Cell, the journal where his very first retraction actually took place, unsurprisingly a Dunoyer et al paper. Back in 2004, Plant Cell accommodated Voinnet by dismissing Vance as his peer reviewer, because Vance kept pointing out his data manipulations. What services did Plant Cell offer Voinnet now, so desperate to welcome him back?

Both Voinnet and his sidekick Dunoyer are again publishing on the high level. Next, research funding will start to roll in, which will further cement their faculty positions. Funding, which their honest European colleagues are regularly denied because they did not publish where Voinnet and Dunyoer publish, thanks to their ruthless attitudes to research integrity. Next year the latest, I predict we will see Voinnet giving a talk at a major conference, maybe even Dunoyer will get invited. And of course, these two scientists will be peer reviewing your papers and grant applications, if you work in their field of research.

Science’s alleged power to self-correct did not really impress here, with the bulk of plant science community sticking their heads in the sand or hiding in the bushes. Well, get ready for Voinnet to be back on the big stage soon. And then it will be revenge time.


If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Your generous patronage of my journalism will be most appreciated!


39 comments on “Voinnet’s sidekick Dunoyer welcomed at Nature Plants, despite retractions and admitted misconduct

  1. Ana Pedro

    Is this really surprising?
    “Nature recently accepted a new paper from the Kalluri lab (Kamerkar et al 2017), on the same topic of exosomes as cancer biomarkers as his irreproducible earlier masterpiece with Melo (Melo et al, Nature 2015). ” (


  2. Once I estimated that I would have 10-20% more papers on my publication list if I had accepted to put my name on papers in which I did almost nothing, on papers I disagreed to co-author although I was strongly involved, or even on papers whose idea had secretly been “borrowed” to me. For the first two categories, my boss called my behaviour “integrity”.
    Perhaps my career would have been different with these 10-20% more papers, or at least would I have received more financial support from my Department for “publication performance”.
    Thus research integrity has never paid me anything. In fact, I am convinced it should not be rewarded, because in the end it is just doing the job right.
    So, when I read that story of Dunoyer, I feel disgust and I am even more convinced that I made the right decision when I resigned from academia after a career of about 15 years. Now I am wondering, if these guys have kids, what do they teach them? Is it fine to cheat at school? What do they say if their kids lie to them?


    • Colin Paul de Gloucester

      Dr. Joulik:
      “I feel disgust and I am even more convinced that I made the right decision when I resigned from academia after a career of about 15 years. Now I am wondering, if these guys have kids, what do they teach them? Is it fine to cheat at school?”

      Please do not consider this to be criticism, but if all good scientists would leave, then who would make trustworthy foods and medicines for us?

      Sincères salutations,
      Nicolas Paul Cóilin de Glocester


  3. Is there life on Mars? I feel so damn embarrassed by being a scientist when I read about these cheaters.


  4. Why all so negative? Can’t we cherish a goody-goody like the Nature Plant chief editor Surridge? Isn’t it wonderful that Patrice gets a second chance, even after he didn’t come clean when given that chance by the ETH investigators (cheeky, cheeky, to not reveal those Science 2010 duplications)? And wow, how this is trumpeted with a main editorial, that is so unnecessary and brave!

    Surridge indicates that science is like the old Tour de France, with almost all participants cheating. Now Patrice’s blood was tested, and hurray, this time none of his pictures were duplicated!
    Don’t we all have this feeling when we get older and compare, that also we might be smart enough for being president of the United States, and that also we might be smart enough for running a Nature journal?


    • With so many scientist facing problems with getting their research projects funded, it is frustrating to see that cheaters can continue like nothing has happened. The reproducible problem in science shows that we have a huge problem and I think one of the solutions is to be more strict regarding research misconduct.

      Lance Armstrong got a life time ban, and that should also be the punishment for gross data manipulations in research, like in this case.


  5. Pingback: Boletim de Notícias, 28/jul: EUA fazem sua 1ª edição genética de embrião humano | Direto da Ciência

  6. About 10 years ago or so Nature publushed article about fraud pointing out that it provides big advantages for careers with little danger of punishment. Now they seem to test this point in practice.


    • I was wrong. It was not Nature who wrote this article, it was a letter by T. M. Fenning
      Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Beutenburg Campus published by Nature in 2004.
      Very nice letter by the way with the title: “Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk”
      Most important point:
      “the real question is not why a few scientists commit fraud, but why more don’t do it.
      …..since the maximum penalty for getting caught (dismissal) was no worse than the routine penalty for not producing enough high-profile papers (no job), most junior scientists, at least, have nothing to lose by committing fraud.”
      One can add that for senior staff the penalty by dismissal is also almost non existing as many of the recent examples suggest. One case (Macchiarini) per 10 years and only due to terrible deaths and huge effort by mass media.


      • Colin Paul de Gloucester

        Dr. Angry:
        “One can add that for senior staff the penalty by dismissal is also almost non existing”.

        Alas true.

        Sincères salutations,
        Nicolas Paul Cóilin de Glocester


  7. Maybe some weed lovers can help me out with the following questions on this new Nature Plants paper:
    1. Figure 4e, compare ratios P15 and Coomassie. This figure indicates that there is no enrichment of P15 in peroxisomes of PCV-infected plants. Isn’t this observation in conflict with the paper model?
    2. Does the peroxisome purification protocol isolate all vesicular structures of similar range? Can the PCV RNA in the “peroxisome fraction” in Figs. 4c and 4f be explained by association with other vesicular structures? Is there any evidence that PCV derived RNAs are associated with peroxisomes?


  8. Within the model It would be important to know which of the PCV siRNAs, 21 or 22 nt, is delivered to the peroxisome. Why did the authors not clarify that but only show a “21/22 nt” band, whereas in Fig. S5 they could perfectly separate the 21 and 22 bands?


    • Ans why weren’t the Figs. 4c and 4f experiments done with PCVdN6? What am I missing what the reviewers did know or see?


  9. I don’t find the peroxisome model convincing, because

    P15 has a function independent of its C-terminal 6 aa (which contain the peroxisome targeting motif).
    a. The PCV P15 knockout has an RNA replication deficiency (Dunoyer 2001) which is not observed in PCV P15dN6 (Dunoyer 2002; Incarbone 2017).
    b. P15 but also P15dN6 expression can cause an absolute and relative increase of 21 nt RNAs (it would be interesting to compare that better with each other) (Incarbone 2017).
    c. Not only P15 but also P15dN6 prohibits binding by AGO of 21 nt siRNA (Incarbone 2017).
    Evidence that during a PCV infection the P15 proteins or PCV siRNAs accumulate in peroxisomes was not provided (see my previous posts).
    The sequestering idea, irrespective of the peroxisome, is interesting. However, a study on sequestering would need a proper description of all what is loaded on each gel, otherwise it is impossible to discuss how a molecule is distributed among the cell compartments. Maybe that’s a nice idea for Chris Surridge, to not only ask for complete pictures, but to make another leap in science by asking a thorough description of the materials and methods.
    I don’t understand why the study doesn’t contain many more data on comparing PCV wt and PCV P15dN6 infected cells, because those are the experiments which matter most.


  10. Nature Plants had José-Antonio Daròs write a News & Views article on the Incarbone article.
    I think that his following sentences are very wrong, and show that conclusions on a peroxisome involvement can’t be made:

    “To further support their hypothesis, Incarbone et al. inoculated a series of A. thaliana dcl mutants with a defective PCV harbouring the P15 mutant that lacks the peroxisome targeting sequence. While this virus was barely detectable in wild-type and dcl2 A. thaliana plants, virus systemic movement and viral load were restored in dcl4 and dcl2/dcl4 mutants, indicating that the delivery of DCL4-dependent virus-derived 21-nt siRNA into the peroxisomes by P15 is a critical step to prevent silence signal propagation and allow the virus to move long distance.”
    This argumentation is incorrect. P15 and P15dN6 differ in their ability to target the peroxisome. However, the mutation only shows a phenotype when 21 nt siRNA is absent (in dcl4 backgrounds), so that the mutation effect can’t be through 21 nt siRNA. What the absence of 21 nt siRNA probably does is that the 22 nt siRNA becomes more important for the plant defense, so that in some way the C-terminal mutation of P15, a protein that can strongly bind some 22 nt RNA, becomes more relevant.

    “Collectively, these results indicate that, upon infection, host plant DCL4 and DCL2 respectively produce virus-derived 21- and 22-nt siRNAs — 22-nt siRNAs are particularly abundant in PCV-infected tissues — to incite the antiviral defence. However, the virus counteracts by expressing P15 that binds these siRNAs. While the strong P15 affinity towards the 22-nt siRNAs is sufficient to stop the plant antiviral response, the weak affinity towards the 21-nt siRNAs has forced PCV to evolve a novel RNA silencing suppression strategy: piggybacking siRNAs into the peroxisomes to divert them from cell-to-cell traffic (Fig. 1).”
    Daròs here kind of denies the whole model by Incarbone. Because, the dN6 effect on virus replication is not through 21 nt RNA as explained above, and Daròs correctly denies here any evidence for a replication effect of “piggybacking” of 22 nt RNA by P15. Actually, that piggybacking during PCV infection hasn’t even been proven.


  11. (This message was posted from an IP-address registered in Zurich, Switzerland, where Olivier Voinnet lives and works. -LS)
    U nailed it !! a news to say nothin more than a scientist was making 2 good publications ???
    How much paid u Fuckin Olivier Voynet ??
    U are just throwing the dirts on the wrong persons… I hope your Fuckin boss Olivier Voynet will be clean after all of your hog work !!


    • [this comment also came from Zurich, according to IP-address,-LS]
      What a great journalist !! u point the one telling the truth and for the rodents they can still be anonymous… Why Olivier Voinet is making 2 cell publication and nothing happens and then u jump the poor Dr Dunoyer with his publications and IBMP publications… U try to save Fuckin Voinnet skin… HOW MUCH DID HE PAID U ?? BE A JOURNALIST SAY THE TRUTH OR ALL YOUR BLOG IS A BULLSHIT LIES !!

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Is that you, Olivier?


  13. Pingback: The PubPeer Stars of Weizmann Institute – For Better Science

  14. Predictions made at the end of the text concerning what will happen next seemed pretty dire and over-exaggerated to me when I read them first.
    But now, I think they are realistic, and if anything, over-optimistic. Even retraction-watch seems to buy into the obvious baloney that what Chris Surridge calls “transparency” (that is, a few photos uploaded as Supplemental Information) will make up for a proven lack of integrity.


    • Oh, interesting. After Macchiarini, Sonia Melo etc, Retraction Watch now whitewash Voinnet. I think they take fighting me too seriously. Still waiting for their interview with Thorsten or Heike Walles.


      • Colin Paul de Gloucester

        Dr. Winfried S. Peters:
        “Even retraction-watch”.

        Dr. Leonid Schneider:
        “Oh, interesting. After Macchiarini, Sonia Melo etc, Retraction Watch now”.

        Retraction Watch is hypocritical and untrustworthy and dishonest.

        Sincères salutations,
        Nicolas Paul Cóilin de Glocester


  15. Klaas van Dijk

    It is interesting to note that publisher Hindawi states at :

    In the event that there are documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in a journal published by Hindawi, the following sanctions will be applied:

    Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript.
    Immediate rejection of every other manuscript submitted to any journal published by Hindawi by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
    Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to any journal published by Hindawi, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as in combination with any other authors. This prohibition will be imposed for a minimum of 36 months.
    Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by Hindawi.

    In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly egregious, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.”


  16. Pingback: Voinnet’s CNRS investigator Catherine Jessus with own data integrity issues – For Better Science

  17. Colin Paul de Gloucester

    Dr. Leonid Schneider:
    “Back in 2004, Plant Cell accommodated Voinnet by dismissing Vance as his peer reviewer, because Vance kept pointing out his data manipulations.”


    “Science’s alleged power to self-correct”.

    Indeed, so-called scientists protect falsehood instead of truth, alas.

    Sincères salutations,
    Nicolas Paul Cóilin de Glocester


  18. Pingback: CNRS hits back at the stream of misconduct evidence – For Better Science

  19. Pingback: Collages by Paul Workman, from the Golden Age of Biological Imaging – For Better Science

  20. Pingback: Updated: CNRS lab of Voinnet’s right hand Patrice Dunoyer dissolved by director’s decree – For Better Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: