About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Lost from translation(al) medicine: Publisher error leads to retraction

with 2 comments

jrntransmedA technical hiccup led the Journal of Translational Medicine to double publish a 2012 paper by a pair of researchers from China and the United States, leading to a retraction.

The article is/was titled “Opportunities and challenges of disease biomarkers: a new section in the journal of translational medicine,” and it was written by Xiangdong Wang and Peter Ward — both members of the journal’s editorial board. It appeared in the Nov. 7, 2012 issue of the JTM. And it appeared less than a month later, on Dec. 5.

As the retraction notice explains:

The publisher has retracted this article [1] because it was republished in error [2] due to technical reasons. BioMed Central apologize to the authors and readers for the error and any inconvenience caused.

In case you’re wondering, here’s what the article has to say:

Disease biomarkers are defined to diagnose various phases of diseases, monitor severities of diseases and responses to therapies, or predict prognosis of patients. Disease-specific biomarkers should benefit drug discovery and development, integrate multidisciplinary sciences, be validated by molecular imaging. The opportunities and challenges in biomarker development are emphasized and considered. The Journal of Translational Medicine opens a new Section of Disease Biomarkers to bridge identification and validation of gene or protein-based biomarkers, network biomarkers, dynamic network biomarkers in human diseases, patient phenotypes, and clinical applications. Disease biomarkers are also important for determining drug effects, target specificities and binding, dynamic metabolism and pharmacological kinetics, or toxicity profiles.

This is the second double publication retraction we’ve seen from BioMed Central in a month. But since they’re an open access publisher, at least they didn’t charge $37 for the privilege of reading any of the notices.

About these ads

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Were the authors double-charged the excessive OA fees by BMC? IF yes, did BMC provide a full refund?


    June 17, 2013 at 11:27 am

  2. I assume that they retracted only one version of the paper, although there are links here pointing only to a June retraction… and the retraction does not indicate if they’re retracting a single version. I don’t understand the mention here in RetractionWatch of “it” — which “it” refers to the paper and which to the retraction?


    June 17, 2013 at 2:40 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 35,954 other followers

%d bloggers like this: