ArticleEXCLI journal2026
Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed.
Article in EXCLI journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Publisher intervention in editorial decision-making: when established editorial procedures no longer determine publication decisions.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Correction · 2026-07-27Error in Text · · continuation of affiliations: Department of Toxicology, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund, Germany; Livers Journal; Toxicological Sciences Journal; Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology & Therapeutics, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA; Department of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USA; Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Parts A & B; McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada; Science & Regulatory Affairs, American Cleaning Institute®, Washington, DC, USA; River Bluff Associates, LLC, Bloomington, MN, USA; Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA (retired); Environmental Health and Toxicology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA (Prof. emeritus); Synergy Partners R&D Solutions, Chester, NJ, USA; Department of Toxicology, University of Würzburg, Germany; Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Hamburg Medical School, Germany (Prof. emeritus); The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA; University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, University, MS, USA (Prof. emeritus); Critical Reviews in Toxicology journal, Editor-in-Chief (emeritus);
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
66 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The decision by the co-Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Prof. Martin van den Berg, to retract the 2000 review article by Williams, Kroes, and Munro has elicited widespread criticism within the scientific community. Issued in late 2025, the retraction decision cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws. This editorial argues that the retraction decision involves editorial overreach and misapplication of the guidelines. The alleged omissions stemmed from proprietary data access limitations that were disclosed in the original paper. Subsequent reviews by several independent expert panels and regulatory authorities with access to all glyphosate data, including the studies cited by the retracting editor, reached similar conclusions. Claims of ghostwriting were previously investigated and found lacking, including a declaration by EFSA as to the clarity of the conflict disclosures. The retraction's timing, reliance on litigation documents, and apparent biases that were not disclosed in the retraction notice raise questions of ideological interference. Absent substantive rebuttals based on scientific merit rather than speculative claims of inappropriate authorship and data access, this retraction decision sets a dangerous precedent for retroactive censorship, potentially chilling beneficial industry-academic collaborations and eroding trust in the integrity of scientific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scientific flaws isn't protection-it is censorship. We therefore call for the immediate reversal of this flawed and unjustified retraction to preserve trust in peer-reviewed literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.