About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Letter writing campaign leads to expression of concern over duplication

with 3 comments

jncncoverIt’s not quite the Lazlo Letters of behavioral science, but the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences has issued an expression of concern after discovering that it had been publishing letters that had been published in other journals.

Here’s how the notice describes the matter:

Several letters published in the Spring and Summer 2011 issues of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences were also submitted to and published in other journals:

  • Escitalopram and ischemic stroke: causal or chance association? Aggarwal A, Kumar R, Sharma R, Sharma DD
    • Published in:
    • J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2011 Spring; 23(2):E38-39
    • AND
    • Ann Pharmacother 2010 Sep; 44(9):1508-1509. Epub 2010 Aug 1.
  • Delirium associated with olanzapine therapy in an elderly man with bipolar affective disorder. Aggarwal A, Sharma RC
    • Published in:
    • J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2011 Spring; 23(2):E54-55
    • AND
    • Psychiatry Investig 2010 Jun; 7(2):153-4. Epub 2010 May 18.
  • Probable psychosis associated with levetiracetam: a case report. Aggarwal A, Sharma DD, Sharma RC, Kumar R
    • Published in:
    • J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2011 Summer; 23(3):E19-20.
    • AND
    • Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2011 Jan 15; 35(1):274-5.
  • Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis presenting as mania. Aggarwal A
    • Published in:
    • J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2011 Spring; 23 (2); E15-E16.
    • AND
    • Ann Indian Acad Neurol [2011 Apr-Jun; 14(2): 120–121]

This duplicate publication is a violation of our editorial policy, which states that all submissions must represent original material, cannot have been published previously, and are not being considered for publication elsewhere. We notified Ashish Aggarwal of the Indira Gandhi Medical College Department of Psychiatry of our intent to publish this Expression of Concern. We also sent word to each of the publications in which the duplications appeared.

Two of the letters have been cited one time each, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Although we commend the journal on its openness here, we’re curious why it chose to issue an expression of concern rather than to simply retract the articles. After all, duplicate publication, in our experience, almost always ends in retraction.

About these ads

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on The Firewall.


    June 7, 2013 at 10:38 am

  2. Maybe they thought an Expression of Concern would have more impact than a simple retraction?

    puzzled monkey

    June 7, 2013 at 1:50 pm

  3. This is certainly an odd use of an Expression of Concern and not one recommended by the COPE retraction guidelines (see http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf) … responding to Puzzled Monkey, I’ve never come across an editor who viewed an EoC has having more impact than a retraction (although it’s an interesting hypothesis) … in my experience (from COPE) EoCs are sometimes (wrongly) viewed as ‘watered down’ or slightly softer versions of retractions

    Liz Wager

    June 10, 2013 at 9:59 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: