Five years ago, there was a controversy in the pages of Nature regarding this paper from 1993, the first to claim atomic-resolution chemical analysis via scanning transmission electron microscopy. At issue was whether or not the data in the paper had been reprocessed (in response to referee concerns) in a legitimate or misrepresentative way, and whether the authors had been honest and forthcoming with the journal and the reviewers about the procedures they'd followed. The reason that matters came to a head more than 12 years after the original paper was the appearance of a preprint in the arxiv and subsequently submitted to Nature Physics, sharing two of the authors of the original paper, with further questions raised about the handling and analysis of data and images. This was all discussed clearly and succinctly by ZZ at the time. Nature allowed the authors to publish a corrigendum, a correction rather than a retraction, regarding the original '93 paper. This was sufficiently controversial that Nature felt the need to write an editorial explaining their decision. Oak Ridge did an investigation of the matter, and concluded that there was no fabrication or falsification of data; that report and a response by the authors are linked here. Judging from the appearance of this on the arxiv last night, it would appear that this isn't quite the end of things.