About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Lyme disease diagnostics review retracted for plagiarism

with one comment

Medical reviewA review paper published in the Serbian journal Medicinski pregled (Medical review) has been retracted for plagiarising a 2002 paper published in the Croatian Journal of Infection (or Infektološki glasnik).

The retraction note (in Serbian only) in the current issue (vol. 65, issue 11-12) of Medicinski pregled, published by the Society of Physicians of Vojvodina of the Medical Society of Serbia reads:

At the initiative of the editors of Medicinski pregled and with an agreement of the authors, the article by Gajović O, Todorović Z, Nešić Lj, Lazić Z. ‘Lyme borreliosis: Diagnostic difficulties in interpreting serological results’ published in 2010 (volume 63, number 11-12, p. 839-843), is being retracted because it plagiarises Đaković Rode O, Ružić Sabljić E. ‘Lyme borelioza – diferencijalno dijagnostičke poteškoće u interpretaciji seroloških rezultata’ published in the journal Infektološki glasnik in 2002 (volume 22, number 2, p. 45-49).

However, the article is still accessible via the Serbian national citation index, SCIndeks, without a link to the retraction note.  And there is still no watermark on the pdf available at the database.

The journal’s site only lists pdfs of full journal issues, rather than individual papers, so the paper is also available there, also unmarked as retracted.

The journal’s editorial office tells Retraction Watch:

In accordance with COPE standards, the editorial of Medicinski pregled was only required to publish the retraction notice. Deleting or marking the article as retracted is a task for secondary sources/bases.

This is the first retraction case in our magazine. Considering that we have entered Aseestant system, future articles will be systematically checked for plagiarism.

The original 2002 paper does not seem to be available online as the journal’s online archives only go back to 2005.

About these ads

Written by micotatalovic

January 28, 2013 at 8:30 am

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “In accordance with COPE standards, the editorial of Medicinski pregled was only required to publish the retraction notice. Deleting or marking the article as retracted is a task for secondary sources/bases.”
    This is possibly the most lazy and sloppy editorial action reported to date! If it is the primary source obligation to publish the retraction note it is an infinitisimally small stretch to actually mark the article as well…

    Helle

    January 29, 2013 at 4:07 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 31,385 other followers

%d bloggers like this: