Editing Nature (journal) (section)

===Controversies===
In 2017, ''Nature'' published an editorial entitled "Removing Statues of Historical figures risks whitewashing history: Science must acknowledge mistakes as it marks its past". The article commented on the placement and maintenance of statues honouring scientists with histories that have since come under criticism for a variety of reasons. Specifically, the editorial called on examples of [[J. Marion Sims]], the 'Father of gynecology' who experimented on African American female slaves who were unable to give informed consent, and [[Thomas Parran Jr.]] who oversaw the [[Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment]].  The editorial as written made the case that removing such statues, and erasing names, runs the risk of "whitewashing history", and stated "Instead of removing painful reminders, perhaps these should be supplemented". The article caused a large outcry and was quickly modified by Nature.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Science must acknowledge its past mistakes and crimes |journal=Nature |date=7 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7670 |pages=5–6 |doi=10.1038/549005b |pmid=28880309 |bibcode=2017Natur.549R...5. |s2cid=4462464 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The article was largely seen as offensive, inappropriate, and by many, racist. ''Nature'' acknowledged that the article as originally written was "offensive and poorly worded" and published selected letters of response.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Readers respond to Nature's Editorial on historical monuments |journal=Nature |date=8 September 2017 |doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22584 }}</ref> The editorial came just weeks after hundreds of white supremacists marched in [[Charlottesville, Virginia]], in the [[Unite the Right Rally|Unite the Right rally]] to oppose the removal of [[Robert E. Lee Monument (Charlottesville, Virginia)|a statue of Robert E. Lee]], setting off violence in the streets and killing a young woman. When Nature posted a link to the editorial on [[Twitter]], the thread quickly exploded with criticisms. In response, several scientists called for a boycott.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Schulson |first=Michael |title=History Lessons for 'Nature'|date=17 September 2017 |newspaper=Undark Magazine |url=https://undark.org/article/nature-journal-j-marion-sims/}}</ref> On 18 September 2017, the editorial was updated and edited by Philip Campbell, the editor of the journal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Campbell |first1=Philip |s2cid=47247939 |title=Statues: an editorial response |journal=Nature |date=18 September 2017 |volume=549 |issue=7672 |pages=334 |doi=10.1038/549334c |pmid=28922663 |bibcode=2017Natur.549..334C }}</ref>

When [[Paul Lauterbur]] and [[Peter Mansfield]] won a [[Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine]] for research initially rejected by ''Nature'' and published only after Lauterbur appealed against the rejection, ''Nature'' acknowledged more of its own missteps in rejecting papers in an editorial titled, "Coping with Peer Rejection":
{{blockquote|[T]here are unarguable ''faux pas'' in our history. These include the rejection of [[Čherenkov radiation|Cherenkov radiation]], [[Hideki Yukawa]]'s [[meson]], work on [[photosynthesis]] by [[Johann Deisenhofer]], [[Robert Huber]] and [[Hartmut Michel]], and the initial rejection (but eventual acceptance) of [[Stephen Hawking]]'s [[Hawking radiation|black-hole radiation]].<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Nature |date=16 October 2003 |title=Coping with peer rejection |volume=425 |page=645 |doi=10.1038/425645a |pmid=14562060 |issue=6959 |bibcode=2003Natur.425..645.|doi-access=free }}</ref>}}

In June 1988, after nearly a year of guided scrutiny from its editors, ''Nature'' published a controversial and seemingly anomalous paper detailing [[Jacques Benveniste]] and his team's work studying [[water memory]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davenas |first1=E. |last2=Beauvais |first2=F. |last3=Amara |first3=J. |last4=Oberbaum |first4=M. |last5=Robinzon |first5=B. |last6=Miadonnai |first6=A. |last7=Tedeschi |first7=A. |last8=Pomeranz |first8=B. |last9=Fortner |first9=P. |last10=Belon |first10=P. |last11=Sainte-Laudy |first11=J. |last12=Poitevin |first12=B. |last13=Benveniste |first13=J. |s2cid=12992106 |title=Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE |journal=Nature |date=June 1988 |volume=333 |issue=6176 |pages=816–818 |doi=10.1038/333816a0 |pmid=2455231 |bibcode=1988Natur.333..816D }}</ref> The paper concluded that less than a single molecule of [[antibody]] diluted in water could trigger an immune response in human [[basophils]], defying the physical [[law of mass action]]. The paper excited substantial media attention in Paris, chiefly because their research sought funding from [[homeopathic]] medicine companies. Public inquiry prompted ''Nature'' to mandate an extensive and stringent experimental [[replication (statistics)|replication]] in Benveniste's lab, through which his team's results were refuted.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maddox |first1=John |last2=Randi |first2=James |last3=Stewart |first3=Walter W. |s2cid=9579433 |title='High-dilution' experiments a delusion |journal=Nature |date=1 July 1988 |volume=334 |issue=6180 |pages=287–290 |doi=10.1038/334287a0 |pmid=2455869 |bibcode=1988Natur.334..287M }}</ref>

Before publishing one of its most famous discoveries, [[James D. Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]]'s 1953 [[Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid|paper]] on the [[structure of DNA]], ''Nature'' did not send the paper out for peer review. [[John Maddox]], ''Nature''{{'}}s editor, stated: "the Watson and Crick paper was not peer-reviewed by ''Nature'' ... the paper could not have been refereed: its correctness is self-evident. No referee working in the field ... could have kept his mouth shut once he saw the structure".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maddox |first1=J. |doi=10.1038/426119b |title=How genius can smooth the road to publication |journal=Nature |volume=426 |issue=6963 |page=119 |year=2003|bibcode=2003Natur.426..119M |doi-access=free }}</ref>

An earlier error occurred when [[Enrico Fermi]] submitted his breakthrough paper on the weak [[Fermi's interaction|interaction theory]] of [[beta decay]]. ''Nature'' rejected the paper because it was considered too remote from reality.<ref>{{cite book|author=Rhodes, Richard |title=The Making of the Atomic Bomb|publisher= Touchstone|location= New York|date= 1986|isbn= 978-0-671-44133-3}}</ref> Fermi's paper was published by ''[[Zeitschrift für Physik]]'' in 1934.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fermi |first1=E. |s2cid=125763380 |title=Versuch einer Theorie der β-Strahlen. I |journal=Zeitschrift für Physik |volume=88 |issue=3–4 |pages=161–177 |year=1934 |doi=10.1007/BF01351864 |bibcode=1934ZPhy...88..161F}}</ref>

The journal apologised for its initial coverage of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]] in which it linked China and Wuhan with the outbreak, which may have led to racist attacks.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079293/coronavirus-nature-magazine-apologises-reports-linking-covid-19|title=Scientific journal admits error in linking coronavirus with China|date=2020-04-09|website=South China Morning Post|language=en|access-date=2020-04-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Stop the coronavirus stigma now |journal=Nature |date=7 April 2020 |volume=580 |issue=7802 |pages=165 |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01009-0 |pmid=32265571 |bibcode=2020Natur.580..165. |doi-access=free }}</ref>

==== Retractions ====
From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by [[Schön scandal|Jan Hendrik Schön]] was published in ''Nature''. The papers, about [[semiconductors]], were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003, ''Nature'' retracted the papers. The Schön scandal was not limited to ''Nature''; other prominent journals, such as ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Physical Review]]'', also retracted papers by Schön.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Retractions' realities |journal=Nature |date=6 March 2003 |volume=422 |issue=6927 |pages=1 |doi=10.1038/422001a |pmid=12621394 |bibcode=2003Natur.422Q...1. |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In 2024, a paper titled "[[Cell potency|Pluripotency]] of [[Mesenchymal stem cell|mesenchymal stem cells]] derived from adult marrow," published in 2002, was [[Retraction in academic publishing|retracted]] due to concerns raised regarding some of the panels shown in a figure, making it the most-cited retracted paper ever.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-07 |title=University of Minnesota retracts pioneering studies in stem cells, Alzheimer's disease |url=https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-university-minnesota-retracts-stem-cells.html |access-date=2024-07-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240707093350/https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-06-university-minnesota-retracts-stem-cells.html |archive-date=7 July 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuehua |last2=Jahagirdar |first2=Balkrishna N. |last3=Reinhardt |first3=R. Lee |last4=Schwartz |first4=Robert E. |last5=Keene |first5=C. Dirk |last6=Ortiz-Gonzalez |first6=Xilma R. |last7=Reyes |first7=Morayma |last8=Lenvik |first8=Todd |last9=Lund |first9=Troy |last10=Blackstad |first10=Mark |last11=Du |first11=Jingbo |last12=Aldrich |first12=Sara |last13=Lisberg |first13=Aaron |last14=Low |first14=Walter C. |last15=Largaespada |first15=David A. |date=June 2024 |title=Retraction Note: Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=630 |issue=8018 |pages=1020 |doi=10.1038/s41586-024-07653-0 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free |pmid=38886620 |bibcode=2024Natur.630.1020J }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuehua |last2=Jahagirdar |first2=Balkrishna N. |last3=Reinhardt |first3=R. Lee |last4=Schwartz |first4=Robert E. |last5=Keene |first5=C. Dirk |last6=Ortiz-Gonzalez |first6=Xilma R. |last7=Reyes |first7=Morayma |last8=Lenvik |first8=Todd |last9=Lund |first9=Troy |last10=Blackstad |first10=Mark |last11=Du |first11=Jingbo |last12=Aldrich |first12=Sara |last13=Lisberg |first13=Aaron |last14=Low |first14=Walter C. |last15=Largaespada |first15=David A. |date=July 2002 |title=Retracted Article: Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature00870 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=418 |issue=6893 |pages=41–49 |doi=10.1038/nature00870 |pmid=12077603 |bibcode=2002Natur.418...41J |issn=1476-4687}}{{Retracted|doi=10.1038/s41586-024-07653-0|pmid=38886620|https://retractionwatch.com/2024/06/18/nature-retracts-highly-cited-2002-paper-that-claimed-adult-stem-cells-could-become-any-type-of-cell/ ''Retraction Watch''|intentional=yes}}</ref>