About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Korean cardiology journal retracts one paper for plagiarism, and another for duplication

with 2 comments

A Korean cardiology journal has retracted a 2011 review article because it “seriously” plagiarized a 2009 paper in another journal.

Here’s the notice, which is dated May 24, 2012 but just came to our attention, thanks to a post by Marilyn Mann:

On July 31, 2011, Korean Circulation Journal (KCJ) published a review article by Park et al.1)regarding the J-curve in hypertension and coronary artery diseases. However, a possibility of plagiarism has been raised in this article.

The Editorial Board of KCJ has examined the review article and has requested the Committee for Publication Ethics of Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE) to provide an adequate conclusion. After thorough investigation, the Committee for Publication Ethics of KAMJE and the Editorial Board of KCJ have concluded that the article is seriously plagiarizing from an article by Messeri et al.2)

In this regard, on May 8, 2012, the Executive Committee of the Korean Society of Cardiology has finally decided to retract the article completely. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

References

1. Park CG, Lee JY. The Significance of the J-Curve in Hypertension and Coronary Artery Diseases. Korean Circ J. 2011;41:349–353. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

2. Messerli FH, Panjrath GS. The J-Curve Between Blood Pressure and Coronary Artery Disease or Essential Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1827–1834. [PubMed]

Larry Husten, at Cardiobrief, first pointed out the similarities between the two papers in a post this past March, with help from Mann:

The Korean article includes some content not included in or published after the JACC article, but a large proportion of the article represents obvious plagiarism. The Korean article fails to even cite the JACC article from which it clearly derives so much of its content, language, and organization. However, it should be noted that the Korean article does not resort to word-for-word copying of the original.

Husten followed up in April to report that the journal was investigating the issue.

Meanwhile, while we were poking around the KCJ, we found this unrelated retraction in the current issue, for duplication:

Aortic Dissection and Rupture in a Child

Yun Ju Jo, MD1, Eun Jeong Lee, MD1, Jin Won Oh, MD1, Chang Min Moon, MD1, Deok Kyu Cho, MD2, Yun Hyeong Cho,
MD2, Ki Hyun Byun, MD2, and Lucy Youngmin Eun, MD1

1Departments of Pediatric Cardiology and 2Adult Cardiology, Kwandong University Myongji Hospital Cardiovascular Center, Goyang, Korea

Korean Circ J 2011;41:156-159

http://dx.doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2011.41.3.156

I deeply regret to inform you and request for retraction of the case report entitled “Aortic Dissection and Rupture in a Child” published in Korean Circulation Journal.(1)

This case report was submitted in advance to Journal of Cardiology Cases(2) as a case report, which should have been addressed for the publication in KCJ as duplication.

As the corresponding author, I will take full responsibility and respectfully request for the retraction of the paper from KCJ.

1. Jo YJ, Lee EJ, Oh JW, et al. Aortic dissection and rupture in a child. Korean Circ J 2011;41:156-9.

2. Eun LY, Cho DK, Cho YH, Byun KH. Aortic dissection and rupture in an 11-year-old child: a case report. J Cardiol Cases 2011;3:e46-9.

About these ads

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I like the fact that the journal articles involved are cited with complete references, in a footnote no less. Too bad the Protein and Peptide Journal couldn’t follow the same format when they retract an article (see next blog entry (heheh.))

  2. Yes, fraudsters today are “smarter” – they carefully paraphrase and reshuffle the stolen material thinking that they can get away with it.

    Congratulations to the Committee for Publication Ethics of KAMJE and the Editorial Board of KCJ for Doing-the-Right-Thing, i.e. for pointing out the plagiarism and consequently retracting the article.

    YouKnowBestOfAll

    September 8, 2012 at 3:46 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,157 other followers

%d bloggers like this: