About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Primary tumor article retracted for, well, not being primary

with 7 comments

bjrThe British Journal of Radiology has retracted a 2006 paper reporting a case study of an unusual primary cancer. Trouble is, their information was second-hand.

Here’s the notice for the article, titled “Primary extragonadal retroperitoneal teratoma in an adult”: 

This article has been retracted at the request of our honorary editors. The honorary editors have taken the decision to retract this paper owing to similarities in the text to a previously published article [1].

A condition of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare that their work is original and has not been published elsewhere in the same or similar format. This article is therefore not in accordance with our publishing ethics: bjr.birjournals.org/site/authors/Publishing_Ethics.xhtml. Apologies are offered to the authors of the plagiarised work and readers of the journal that this was not detected during  the submission process.

The retracted study has been cited six times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. The plagiarized article, with the title “Primary retroperitoneal teratoma in an adult,” had appeared in the Journal of the Chinese Medical Association in 2003.

Although the cribbing of a case report might seem like relatively trivial, it artificially inflates the perceived incidence of a particular disease.

About these ads

Written by Adam Marcus

February 26, 2013 at 9:30 am

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m going to pop in here to ask a related question. Suppose that I agree to review a manuscript for a journal, but am then informed that the authors withdrew the submission. Suppose that a couple months later, I see the same manuscript published in a different journal, and it is clear from the dates that it was originally a dual submission. Not dual publication, just dual submission. Should I inform the publishing journal directly? Should I contact the editors of the journal I review for and let them decide how to handle it? Or should I do nothing.


    February 26, 2013 at 9:49 am

    • I wouldn’t consider dual submission to be my problem to investigate or divulge, personally. I mean, the situation is that you think that this LOOKS like dual submission. Anything else to go on at all? Since it didn’t result in dual publication, I would not consider it worth my own valuable time to pursue.

      Captain Obvious

      February 26, 2013 at 9:59 am

  2. Am I the only one puzzled about honorary editors? Was the regular editorial staff not on the ball?


    February 26, 2013 at 10:22 am

  3. Retrocaecal cystic teratomas are not unusual. What would be unusual would be malignancies from immature components of the teratoma, something also well described. So overall this incident has very little impact on e medical literature.

    Chip_MoMo (@Chip_Molly)

    February 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm

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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: