Here’s an odd good news/bad news tale from the pages of Industrial Crops and Products. The journal is reinstating a 2011 paper it mistakenly retracted. But, it’s retracting another article from the same author, who tried to grow two peas in the same pod (or something like that).
According to the retraction notice:
Please note that at the request of the author the following journal article has been retracted:
Periodic variation in kernel oil content and fatty acid proﬁles of Calophyllum inophyllum L.: A medicinal plant in northern Australia, Volume 33, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 775–778
Due to an error by the publisher the following article was inadvertently retracted:
Variation in oil content and fatty acid proﬁle of Calophyllum inophyllum L. with fruit maturity and its implications on resultant biodiesel quality, Volume 33, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 629–632
The retraction of this article has now been rescinded.
That’s certainly confusing. But the retraction notice for the first paper clears things up a bit (we think):
This article has been retracted at the request of the Author.
Due to ethical reasons this paper has been withdrawn. The author has used the data derived from the same experiment to describe two different aspects (medicinal and biodiesel properties) of the periodic variation in fatty acid profiles in C. inophyllum. However, the author failed to alter the text as much as should have been done for this manuscript. In order to avoid any complications, the author has therefore withdrawn this article.
We apologise to the author for this error on our behalf and for any inconvenience caused.
The notice suggests that there was too much overlap between the Industrial Crops and Products paper and this one in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy by the same author, Subhash Hathurusingha, of CQ University in Australia.