About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Retraction for image issues forces correction of herbal remedies editorial

with 2 comments

jmm mayBack in March, we wrote about the case of Chinese researchers who pulled their 2011 paper in the Journal of Molecular Medicine on ginseng’s potential as a heart remedy because a couple of their images were suspect (duplicated was the word they’d used).

Turns out the journal suffered some collateral damage. JMM also has corrected a “Clinical Implications” article by a group of Canadian researchers about the defunct ginseng paper.

The article, “Use of ginseng to reduce post-myocardial adverse myocardial remodeling: applying scientific principles to the use of herbal therapies,”  appeared in the same issue as the original, but for some reason the correction notice appeared online only last week.

It states:

One paper (Huiqiu Yin et al., Ginsenoside-Rg1 enhances angiogenesis and ameliorates ventricular remodeling in a rat model of myocardial infarction) discussed in this Clinical Implications article has subsequently been retracted (10.1007/s00109-013-1018-0).

The now-corrected editorial has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

This marks the second time in the past week that we’ve seen instances of retractions leading to corrections or retractions of editorial-type articles.

About these ads

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on The Firewall.

    forgottenman2013

    May 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm

  2. It is always revealing to look at papers that cites the retracted ones. The retracted JMM paper is cited by this one (Wang YB, Liu YF, Lu XT, Yan FF, Wang B, Bai WW, Zhao YX.
    PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054303. Epub 2013 Jan 18. PMID: 23349848) from the same institute and share some authors.
    Figure 5A: VEGFR2 NS-b and RGE-b images are identical.
    Figure 6C: b-Actin for NS-m, NS-MI and RGE-MI are identical. Some dots and lines that make it easy to spot the similarities. CXCR4 and SDF-1 blots of RGE-MI are identical.
    Figure 7B: Actin of 10 and 25 are identical (resized).
    Figure 7C: Actin and CXCR4 of 24 h are identical. Actin 6h is identical to CXCR4 12h.
    Figure 7B and 7C: Actin of AMD from 7B is identical to CXCR4 72h from 7C (resized). Actin of C from 7B is identical to CXCR4 25 of 7C (resize and cropped).

    Junk Science

    May 3, 2013 at 3:46 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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,278 other followers

%d bloggers like this: