There has been announced the subtraction of the paper in which the behavior of polymers under fast shear deformations is discussed.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsmacrolett.7b00171
As mentioned in the article above, their first paper appeared in ACS MacroLetter.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/mz500260h
This specific paper had a great impact for the description of polymer dynamics in entangled states. In the conventional view, under fast shear deformations, the origin of stress is orientation given that the shear rate is lower than the reciprocal Rouse time. On the contrary, their study demonstrates that the stress is from polymer stretching rather than the orientation. Because they used the generic bead-spring model (so-called Kremer-Grest model) and they performed the simulation via the established code (LAMMPS), their study appeared somewhat convincing, and thus, the paper was published in the journal of a high-impact factor.
But, it should be emphasized that, apart from the conventional theory (that might be possibly not 100% perfect), their simulation results are inconsistent with the earlier experimental results for the stress-optical relationship. We made a publication for this issue.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/mz500627r
Even before the publication of the paper (subtracted one), I heard that some researchers in my network evaluated the manuscript as the reviewers (for the other journal rather than ACS Macro Letter), and they did not recommend publication. Nevertheless, the topic was hot and some attempts were made. For instance, Professor Likhtman traced their study (just before his tragic accident) and published the paper in which the results with full consistency with the experimental results.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsmacrolett.5b00708
We made a very similar study as well.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/rheology/44/1/44_65/_article/-char/ja/
What I was impressed is that, after the accumulation of the studies in which the result of the first paper was suspected, the authors have decided to retract the paper. This decision is not only for that specific paper, but also for the related papers which is based on the result of the first paper. I greatly appreciate their decision that clarifies the situation and eliminate possibilities for further confusion. Their behavior is highly admirable. It might be thought that the subtraction is somewhat embarrassing, and it may damage their reputation. But I believe that it is not in the case.