trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Presenting results of a paper under review violates prior publication embargoes.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against

Evidence shows that publishing or submitting research findings prior to the expiration of a mandated data-sharing and publication embargo constitutes a violation of the policy, resulting in retractions.

Evidence for · 1
2009 · cited by 0
Randy Schekman, PNAS takes action regarding breach of NIH embargo policy on a PNAS paper, editorial, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 18, 2009. Alan E. Guttmacher, Elizabeth G. Nabel, and Francis S. Collins, Why data-sharing policies matter, editorial, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 18, 2009. Peter Suber, Open Access News --> --> Open Access News News from the open access movement Jump to navigation News from the open access movement --> Wednesday, September 23, 2009 Paper retracted for breaking publication embargoes on open data Randy Schekman, PNAS takes action regarding breach of NIH embargo policy on a PNAS paper , editorial, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , September 18, 2009. After the paper titled "PKNOX2 gene is significantly associated with substance dependence in European-origin women," by Xiang Chen, Kelly Cho, Burton H. Singer, and Heping Zhang, published online August 31, 2009 in PNAS , our editors became aware that Dr. Zhang had signed a Data Use Certification indicating his agreement to comply with the NIH Genome-Wide Association Studies Policy for Data Sharing, which applies to the Gene Environment Association (GENEVA) studies, of which the Study of Addiction, Genetics and Environment (SAGE) is a part. Under the policy, investigators agree not to submit findings of the SAGE dataset(s) for publication until September 23, 2009. The PNAS publication clearly violates the SAGE embargo, and the authors agreed to retract their work in PNAS on September 9, 2009. ... The major available protection is the guarantee of a period of exclusivity in submission of abstracts and publications for a number of months (usually 6 to 12). This exclusive period is assured by allowing data access only to end users who agree to abide by it. ... With these principles in mind and after considerable public input, the NIH implemented a "Policy for Sharing of Data Obtained in NIH Supported or Conducted Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS)" . This policy provides guidance for researchers who are interested in accessing data from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database dbGaP, requiring recipient investigators and their institutional officials to sign an agreement (the Data Use Certification) by which they will comply with the terms of data access, including a 12-month period of exclusivity. ... [The] research community that must police itself and prevent inappropriate publication in the future. This will require that recipient users of community data resources be fully aware of data use limitations to which they agree and be scrupulous in honoring them.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Paper retracted for breaking publication embargoes on open datapeer-reviewedno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
held for human review08 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt