About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research

with 19 comments

booksThere were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado:

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 25, 2014 at 9:54 am

19 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Frustration in dealing with errors in the plant (and allied sciences) science literature

    These are all important stories, but I would say that the one that relates most to plant scientists – except for the story on the Ronald lab – is in fact the story by Stefan Franzen. I wish to echo his frustration in my own attempts to show how the plant science literature is fraught with errors, but that there is currently little appetite to correct the literature for a few reasons. Many of my own colleagues and friends have been critical of me, even asking me “why” or “for what purpose”, and thus exposing oneself (and ones work and legacy) to critique is one of the greatest challenges that plant scientists face.

    a) Arrogance and fear among editors and editors-in-chief (EICs) who do not want to admit that their quality control (QC) – personal, professional or system-related – failed during the traditional peer review process. A corrigendum under their name would reflect poorly on their management and their legacy would be stained. Which editor wants to, frankly speaking, have a stain on their CV even long after they have left this earth?

    b) The failure to convince such editors and EICs that issuing an erratum (if the author brings forth the claim), a corrigendum (if the publisher recognizes that the error was theirs) is the morally and ethically correct thing to do. There seems to be a serious case of serial and wide-spread denial among plant scientists, or, even worse, a passive lack of will for change.

    c) The lack of desire by publishers to expose that their peer review systems have been fallible and weak, with inherent weaknesses, simply because perfection can only be achieved (if ever), where sample size tends towards infinity. And since most peer reviews in moderate to high IF journals in the plant sciences (IF = 1.0 to 3.5) rely on the “expert” opinion of usually not more than three individuals in a pool that probably contains several million, it is quite easy to understand how the system of traditional peer review is broken, imperfect, and open to abuse, errors and fraud. The current climate of retractions is trying to focus on the authors and scientists, while protecting their own backs and images, thus skirting deeper scrutiny of the current publishing model, which is fundamentally highly flawed.

    d) The real “crime” occurs when there are errors that have been pointed out by the academic community as factual, evidence-based information and critical analysis [1], but which the editors then fail to take into consideration, i.e., the active ignoring of the advice, the facts and the warning signals. Failure to act will be the ultimate down-fall of the reputation of an editor, of the fame of the journal, and the trust of a publisher. Unfortunately, however, if in fact an erratum, corrigendum, or retraction were to be issued for the level that I am personally observing in the plant sciences, then I am afraid that this could potentially wipe out an entire slice of the plant science literature, calling into question the validity of studies that referenced such flawed or erroneous studies. In some cases, the decision is made by the EIC, or by two or three editors. In other words, the fate of the correction of science lies in the hands of a tiny elite and dangerously powerful status quo. Such ego-centric decisions are fundamentally wrong, self-centered, and of course, fraught with bias. But this is one large reality that explains the resistance we are facing in the plant sciences.

    e) The fear by the community of the down-stream effects. No scientist wants their work to be remembered by an erratum, correction or in the worst case, retraction. But these three aspects need to form part of the quotidian landscape of science publishing. And retro-active analysis, and punishment – where merited – should be the mainstay of science moving forward. The equivalent of not assuming this position, no matter how unpalatable it is, is like using the internet thinking that one would be free of virus attacks, hacking, or spying. Naivety, ignorance, and inaction are making corrections to the plant science literature much more than just an uphill climb. In some cases, they are making corrections impossible. The human, intellectual and psychological firewall in place is massive.

    f) There is a lack of understanding of a basic principle that science is a constant conversation. A theory that was established 50 or 80 years ago, if valid at that time, should form part of the discussion even now. In some ways, I am very concerned about the aggressive wave of anti-science activists who are blindly looking at all problems, big and small, as being valid targets for retractions. Those that hate science will seek every means possible to retract anything related to science. Those that care about science want to see the issues resolved correctly, and fairly. Therefore, clear fraud should be punished with a retraction (and more), but “relatively minor” issues should face more lenient or rational punishment, such as an erratum or corrigendum. We are in a historical phase in science, I believe in which retractions seem to be as fashionable as the iPAD or Twitter, and everyone is trying to jump on the band-wagon, especially the skeptics and the critics who have now found a valid avenue to vent their frustrations. However, when we retract a piece of literature, in some ways, it is gone forever. So, we need to inculcate among our peers and editors, a new culture of change. If we can accept that errors are fundamental parts of – if not the essence of – science, then there is hope. And if we can accept that talking about errors, corrections and retractions as part of the everyday conversation [2], even in the literature, then this solidifies hope and breeds change.

    g) The lack of a solid support framework that involves an advice hub, a claims center, a counseling center, the acceptance of anonymity, and the decentralization of power. Although this may sound perfect, in fact it is extremely easy, and cheap, to achieve. This is because it only requires the consciousness of scientists, their time and their willingness to do what is right. Unfortunately, most scientists face that thing called reality! Long work hours and increasingly reduced pay and grants/funding, greater pressure for productivity, and increase scrutiny. Thus, there is little desire to offer their time, intellect and effort to conduct post-publication peer review (PPPR) [1] because it’s simply not convenient. From personal experience, I can say that PPPR is painful, time-consuming, exasperating, frustrating, and damaging (to others and to ourselves). The peer pool is already excessively squeezed, with few drops of additional effort and time to add to the need for precise scrutiny in PPPR. Thus, I believe that we have a real crisis in plant science in which the call for the need is not being met by the correct attitude of the base it is meant to be correcting (and assisting). The crisis is being further fueled by an aggressive attitude by retraction hard-liners that any error, small or large, is something that should be subjected to a retraction. I suspect that there is an underground agenda (but not yet reported on) that is using retractions, and the twisting of ethical values and guidelines, to achieve permanent damage to science, and to undermine its importance in society. This “underground” movement (hypothesis) would be counterproductive to the genuine efforts by real scientists, and real academics, who simply want to see unfairness in science and science publishing eliminated (or reduced as much as possible), and that recognize that one effective way of achieving this is through PPPR.

    The frustrations I feel about plant science relate not so much to the lack of retractions, but to the lack of acceptance that the literature has problems, and needs to be corrected. I was going to substantiate my claims with real examples, as I usually do, but I have decided to reduce them to two references only (to passive my critics who dislike my verbosity). When the time is right, more factual evidence will be released into the blogosphere. PubPeer and PubMed commons are useful tools, but when push comes to shove, the final message to our peers should be one of encouragement and active participation, and not one of fear.

    [1] http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full
    [2] See a simple model for reporting publically on errors in the chrysanthemum literature, some of which merit retractions: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/07/journal-dumps-grain-paper-for-controversial-data/#comments

    Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

    January 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm

    • Report of apparent data/paper duplication: Acta Horticulturae (International Society for Horticultural Science)

      Miguel, M.G., Duarte, F., Venâncio, F. and Tavares, R. 2002. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ESSENTIAL OILS FROM THYMUS MASTICHINA OVER A DAY PERIOD. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 576:87-90

      http://www.actahort.org/books/576/576_15.htm

      http://wwwlib.teiep.gr/images/stories/acta/Acta%20576/576_15.pdf

      Miguel, M.G., Duarte, F., Venãncio, F. and Tavares, R. 2003. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE ESSENTIAL OILS FROM THYMUS MASTICHINA OVER A DAY PERIOD. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 597:75-78

      http://www.actahort.org/books/597/597_8.htm

      http://wwwlib.teiep.gr/images/stories/acta/Acta%20597/597_8.pdf

      O Baptista

      March 30, 2014 at 10:33 pm

      • An update. The 2003 copy has been retracted. The official e-mail follows (e-mails redacted):

        From: Jozef Van Assche
        Sent: 04/01/14 04:10 PM
        To:
        Subject: Miguel (UALG): duplication report

        Dear Sir,
        Dear Dr. Paulo Baptista,

        I have been informed about your complaint to the ISHS President, Prof. Antonio Monteiro, on a so called duplicate publication of the article entitled ‘Chemical Composition of the Essential Oils from Thymus mastichina over a Day Period’, by M.G. Miguel, F. Duarte, F. Venâncio and R. Tavares.

        I hereby wish to inform you that this happened outside of the will of the authors.

        The contributions of the International Conference on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Budapest, Hungary, 8-11 July, 2001, were published in two volumes of Acta Horticulturae, AH 576 Volume I and AH 597 Volume II. The first Volume was published soon after the meeting as Acta Horticulturae 576, the second batch of papers was published as Volume II as Acta Horticulturae 597 some time later, and containing additional contributions of the symposium.

        For one reason or another, the Editors did not noticed that the paper of Dr. M.G. Miguel et al, was published in 576, and they also included it in the batch for 597. All this just by accident. This is this a human failure were the same article was published twice in the set of proceedings on the same meeting.

        We hereby are pleased to inform you that the article has been retracted from AH 597, and that the original stands in AH 576.

        We wish to thank you for bringing this to our attention and remain.
        Faithfully

        Jozef

        Jozef Van Assche
        Executive Director

        International Society for Horticultural Science
        PO Box 500 – 3001 Leuven 1 – Belgium
        Phone: +32 16229427 Fax: +32 16229450

        Visit our website at http://www.ishs.org
        The ISHS, dating from 1864 and formally constituted in 1959, has more than 7000 members representing over 140 countries. It is the world’s leading independent organization of horticultural scientists. ISHS publishes Acta Horticulturae, Chronica Horticulturae, and Scripta Horticulturae.

        O Baptista

        April 18, 2014 at 3:01 pm

  2. Hi,

    Thank you so much for all the brilliant posts you guys send out. I have a professional interest in bad behaviour, and Integrity officer status at my university, and Retraction Watch is so educative.

    Thank you so much for all your hard work :-)

    Jeanette (Oxford D.Phil 1991)

    Jeanette Garwood

    January 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm

  3. Stay on it guys. You are the only encouragement to me, a victim of plagiarism. Just when I think I can’t fight anymore, one of your posts will appear and keep me going.

    Nurse Dina

    January 26, 2014 at 1:23 am

    • Report of apparent figure duplication: for EMBRAPA, SIVB, IVCDB, Acta Scientiarum, Authors, other parties

      Paper 1: Pinto de Carvalho ACP, Pinheiro MVM, Martins FB, Ferreira da Cruz FC, Otoni WC. Produção de mudas micropropagadas de antúrio (Anthurium andraeanum) cv. Eidibel por embriogênese somática. Embrapa Circular Técnica (Fortaleza) 2012;41:1-14
      Paper 2: Pinheiro MVM, Martins FB, Ferreira da Cruz FC, Pinto de Carvalho ACP, Jardim de Oliveira E, Otoni WC. Somatic embryogenesis in anthurium (Anthurium andraeanum cv. Eidibel) as affected by different explants. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 2014;36:87-98.
      Paper 3: Pinheiro MVM, Martins FB, Ferreira da Cruz FC, Pinto de Carvalho ACP, Ventrella MC, Otoni WC. Maturation of Anthurium andraeanum cv. Eidibel somatic embryos from nodal segments. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 2013;49( 3):304-312.

      We wish to make an anonymous report of potential figure duplication.
      Fig 2B, C and E of paper 1 seem identical to Fig. 3A, B and K of paper 2.
      Fig. 3B seems identical to Fig. 4A in paper 2 (rotated 90°)
      Fig. 3A, B, C and D of paper 1 seem identical to Fig. 4B, C, D and G of paper 2, with B and D of the former being cropped and size/proportion manipulated.
      Fig. Fig 6B in paper 1 seems identical to 4I in paper 2.
      Fig. 5E, F, G, H, J in paper 1 seem identical to Fig. 5E, F, G, H, J in paper 3.

      Paper 1 was not reported in paper 2 or paper 3, even though paper 1 appears as open access online and even though it is a formal publication of Embrapa Agroindústria Tropical. Figure duplication would thus also possibly constitute copyright infringement.

      Figure duplication and manipulation is a serious academic offense that distorts the accuracy of the academic record and we call on the retraction of the 2014 paper from Acta Scientiarum and the 2013 paper from In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant. We call on the authors, editors and publishers to take responsible action.

      See sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of Springer 2013 Publication Ethics Manual for Editor and Authors:

      http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1393202/application/pdf/Publication_Ethics_Guide_for_Editors_from_Springer_27052013.pdf

      See clause 3 of Acta Scientiarum Agronomy:
      http://www.scielo.br/revistas/asagr/iinstruc.htm (“Author(s) should state that the manuscript, reporting original work, was not sent, in part or in whole, for publication to another scientific journal.”)

      AR Qui

      Qui?

      February 7, 2014 at 8:46 am

      • Case 30

        Kalimuthu K, Prabakaran R (2013b) In vitro flowering from nodal explants of Ceropegia pusilla Wight and Arn. International Journal of Botany and Research 3(3), 35-42
        http://tjprc.org/journals.php?jtype=2&id=46 (no editor board)
        Kalimuthu K, Prabakaran R (2013c) In vitro and micropropagation for conservation of rare and threatened medicinal plant Ceropegia species – a review. International Journal of Biological Technology 4(2), 23-36

        http://www.gbtrp.com/journal/ijbt%20volume%20no%204(2).htm

        Kalimuthu K, Prabakaran R, Paulsamy S, Jeyaraman S (2014) Microtuberization of Ceropegia pusilla Wight and Arn. an endangered medicinal plant. European Journal of Medicinal Plants 4(1), 64-74

        http://www.sciencedomain.org/issue.php?iid=383&id=14

        Prabakaran R., Sasikala T., Kalimuthu K. (2013) Regeneration of shoots from callus of Ceropegia pusilla Wight and ARN. British Biotechnology Journal 3(3), 416-423

        http://www.sciencedomain.org/journal-home.php?id=11

        Apparent data duplication
        data in Table 2 of 2014 = data in Table 1 of Prabakharan et al. 2013
        data in Table 3 of 2014 = data in Table 4 of Prabakharan et al. 2013
        Notice how micromolar amounts are used by Prabakharan et al. 2013 and mg/l amounts in 2014

        Apparent figure duplication and manipulation
        1F of 2013b = 1E of 2013c = 1G of 2014
        1A of 2013c = 1A of Prabakharan et al. 2013
        1B of 2013c = 1B of Prabakharan et al. 2013
        1F of 2013c = 1F of Prabakharan et al. 2013
        1D of 2014 = 1C of 2013b
        1E of 2014 = 1C of 2013c
        1B of 2013b = 1D of Prabakharan et al. 2013 (tilted and twisted)

        Apparent plagiarism:
        2013 review copies the abstracts of most studies in the literature, and presents this as a review, listing the studies chronologically. Subsequently, this paper has already been retracted, 24 hours after we issued our report:
        IJBT Biotek Editor writes “Thank you for your advice. As the plagiarism is serious, we have retracted the article now on consulting with the consent editor and corresponding author. The retracted article link is given below for your reference.”

        http://www.gbtrp.com/journal/ijbt%20volume%20no%204%282%29kalimuthu%20abs.htm

        http://www.gbtrp.com/journal/ijbt%20volume%20no%204%282%29/ijbt150813104.pdf

        Apparent salami slicing and data/method duplication
        in vitro tuberization, shoot and flower induction already reported in 2013b (classical salami slice adding information to text in 2013b and data in tables in 2014 to feign originality; self-plagiarism exact text copied, see M&M section; values reported in molar amounts in 2013b and then in g/l amounts in 2014 to appear original, but are identical concentrations.

        Qui?

        February 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        • Case 31

          Kondamudi R, Murthy, K.S.R. 2011. Micropropagation of Ceropegia pusilla Wt. & Arn. – an endangered and rare medicinal Asclepiad. Journal of Tropical Medicinal Plants 12: 41-48
          http://tropmedplants.com/article.php?aid=464 (no editor board)
          Kondamudi R, Vijayalakshmi V, Murthy, K.S.R. (2010) Induction of morphogenetic callus and multiple shoot regeneration in Ceropegia pusilla Wight and Arn. Biotechnology, 9: 141-148
          http://scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=biotech.2010.141.148&linkid=pdf (ANSI; no editor-in-chief; http://scialert.net/eboard.php?issn=1682-296x)
          Murthy KSR, Kondamudi R (2010) Effect of cytokinins and auxins on in vitro flowering of endangered Ceropegia spiralis Wight and C. pusilla Wight & Arn. Phytomorphology. 60: 32-37
          Murthy KSR, Kondamudi R, Vijayalakshmi V (2010a) Micropropagation of an endangered medicinal plant Ceropegia spiralis Wight. J Agric. Tech 6: 179-191
          Murthy KSR, Kondamudi R, Pullaiah T (2010b) High frequency somatic embryogenesis in Ceropegia spiralis Wight – an endemic and endangered medicinal plant. Indian J. Biotechnol. 9, 414-418
          http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/10441/1/IJBT%209%284%29%20414-418.pdf (NISCAIR; IF = 0.477)
          Murthy KSR, Kondamudi R (2011) Rapid shoot regeneration from thin cell layer explants of an endangered medicinal asclepiad Ceropegia spiralis L. Plant Tissue Cult. Biotech. 21(1): 63-73
          http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/PTCB/article/view/9564 (BAPTC&B)
          Murthy KSR, Kondamudi R, Karuppusamy S. (2012) Microtuberization of Ceropegia spiralis Wight and Ceropegia pusilla Wt. and Arn. African J. Plant Sci. 6: 321-327
          http://academicjournals.org/article/article1380125590_Murthy%20%20et%20al.pdf (Academic Journals)

          Apparent data duplication
          20 shoot-related data points in Table 2 of Kondamudi and Murthy 2011 are identical to data in Table 3 of Kondamudi et al. 2010
          Data in Table 2 of Murthy and Kondamudi 2010 identical to data in Table 3 of Kondamudi and Murthy 2011
          Table 2 data of Murthy et al. 2010a = Table 1 data of Murthy et al. 2011
          Table 4 data of Murthy et al. 2010a = Table 1 data of Murthy et al. 2012

          Apparent figure duplication and/or manipulation
          Fig 1D of Kondamudi et al. 2010 identical to Fig. 1F of Kondamudi and Murthy 2011
          Fig. 1B of Murthy and Kondamudi 2010 identical to Fig. 1E of Kondamudi and Murthy 2011
          Fig 1B of Murthy and Kondamudi 2011 = Fig. 1B of Murthy et al. 2010a = Fig. 1Ce of Murthy et al. 2012
          Fig 1A of Murthy and Kondamudi 2011 = Fig. 1Cb of Murthy et al. 2012
          Fig 1D of Murthy and Kondamudi 2011 = Fig. 1Cc of Murthy et al. 2012
          Fig. 1G of Murthy et al. 2010a rotated 90° = Fig. 1i of Murthy et al. 2010b
          Fig 1A of Murthy et al. 2010a = Fig. 1A of Murthy et al. 2012
          Fig. 1F of Murthy et al. 2012 = Fig. 1D of Kondamudi et al. 2010
          Fig. 1E of 2012 repeated twice (self-plagiarism)

          This would also directly influence the claims of originality in the review written by this group:
          Murthy, K.S.R., Kondamudi, R., Reddy, M.C., Karuppusamy, S., Pullaiah, T., 2012b. Check-list and conservation strategies of the genus Ceropegia in India. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv. 4(8), 304-315 (Academic Journals)

          Qui?

          February 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm

          • We reported this case on February 11, 2014. By March 3, 2014, the 2012b paper had been retracted, but without any notice. The paper just vanished.

            Raad MK, Zanjani SB, Shoor M, Hamidoghli Y, Sayyad AR, Kharabian-Masouleh A, Kaviani B. Callus induction and organogenesis capacity from lamina and petiole explants of Anthurium andraeanum Linden (Casino and Antadra). Australian J Crop Sci 2012a;6(5):928-937. (Southern Cross Publishing Group, Australia, listed at http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/)

            Raad MK, Zanjani SB, Sayyad AR, Maghsudi M, Kaviani B. Effect of cultivar, type and age of explants, light conditions and plant growth regulators on callus formation of anthurium. American-Eurasian J Agric Environ. Sci 2012b;12(6):706-712. (IDOSI Publications, Dubai, listed at http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/)

            Fig. 1 data of 2012a is identical to “Callus weight” column of Table 1 (2012b)
            Fig. 2 of 2012a is identical to Fig. 1 of 2012b
            Fig. 3 data of 2012a is identical to “Days to callus induction” column of Table 1 (2012b)
            Table 1 data of 2012a is repeated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3

            Neither paper acknowledged the existence of the other paper.

            We wish to deposit this case here as a public record.

            Qui?

            March 3, 2014 at 5:56 pm

            • We wish to report an apparent partial duplication.

              Javad Sharifi Rad, Majid Sharifi Rad, Abdolhossein Miri (2013) Regulation of the Expression of Nitrate Reductase genes in Leaves of Medical plant, Foeniculum vulgare by Different Nitrate Sources. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 5 (24), 2911-2916

              http://ijagcs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2911-2916.pdf

              Javad Sharifi Rad, Majid Sharifi Rad (2013) Regulation of the Expression of Nitrate Reductase Genes in Leaves of Medical Plant, Foeniculum vulgare by Different Nitrate Sources. World Applied Sciences Journal 28 (9): 1311-1315

              http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj28(9)13/18.pdf

              Fig. 4 of IJCAS = Fig. 1 WASJ
              Fig. 1 WASJ = Fig. 2 WASJ = Fig. 3 WASJ = Fig. 4 WASJ

              This serves as a public record.

              Qui?

              March 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm

              • I want to report a possible partial duplication.

                Sule WF, Okonko IO, Joseph TA, Ojezele MO, Nwanze JC, Alli JA, Adewale OG, Ojezele OJ (2010a) In vitro antifungal activity of Senna alata Linn. crude leaf extract. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 5 (3): 275-284 (Publisher: Medwell Journals)

                http://www.medwelljournals.com/fulltext/?doi=rjbsci.2010.275.284

                http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2010/275-284.pdf

                Sule WF, Okonko IO, Joseph TA, Ojezele MO, Nwanze JC, Alli JA, Adewale OG, Ojezele OJ (2010b) In-vitro antifungal activity of Senna Alata Linn. Crude leaf extract. Advances in Applied Science Research 1 (2): 14-26 (Publisher: Pelagia Research Library)

                http://www.pelagiaresearchlibrary.com/advances-in-applied-science/vol1-iss2/AdSSR-2010-1-2-14-26.pdf

                A third paper, 2011 published on the bark, has identical results (Tables 1, 3 and 4) as the 2010a and 2010b paper about leaves. Table 2 has similar data to the 2010a and 2010b papers:

                Sule W. F., Okonko I. O., Omo-Ogun S., Nwanze J. C., Ojezele M. O., Ojezele O. J., Alli J. A., Soyemi E. T., Olaonipekun T. O. (2011) Phytochemical properties and in-vitro antifungal activity of Senna alata Linn. crude stem bark extract. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 5(2), 176-183 (Academic Journals)

                http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380554162_Sule%20et%20al.pdf

                All three publishers are listed on Jeffrey Beall’s http://www.scholarlyoa.com

                ABV Prasad

                March 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm

                • Mr. Prasad, I followed up on your lead. I contacted the editor boards of all three publishers and early in March, Pelagia Research Library retracted the Sule et al. 2010b paper. Not only does clicking the link above lead to an HTTP error, the journal issue web-page lists a gap: http://pelagiaresearchlibrary.com/advances-in-applied-science/vol1-iss2.html
                  Unfortunately, this gap is not useful, or instructive about the problem, and the research community has no idea why the paper was retracted, so I indicated one clear case of a good, informative retraction notice, with a red stamp RETRACTED on the original PDF. I am not sure that they will take the trouble of making this change, but if they do, this would be a positive sign that we may start to be able to correct the literature, by placing pressure on authors and publishers simultaneously.

                  T-bone steak

                  March 27, 2014 at 1:29 am

          • Dear Qyi?,
            Excellent detection, many of Murthy publications are from predatory journals

            Bhavin

            July 24, 2014 at 10:09 am

  4. As the Editor-in-Chief of Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection (TJPP), I discover via a colleague of mine, that one scientific paper was published in 2009 at the same time in TJPP and in Journal of Biopesticides. The paper dealt with the “Efficiency of Spinetoram as a biopesticide to Onion Thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman) and Green Peach Aphid (Myzus persicae Sulzer) under laboratory and field conditions” with the first author “Mahmoud Farag Mahmoud”. Noting that is a case of a flagrante delicto of scientific honesty lack, TJPP withdraw from its website this paper simultaneously published in Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection 4 (2): 221-227 (2009) and Journal of Biopesticides, 2(2): 223- 227 (2009).

    Nasraoui, Bouzid

    April 15, 2014 at 12:46 pm

  5. We wish to report a case of potential plagiarism.
    Thulasi Muneppa Sridhar, Chenna Reddy Aswath
    Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore, India
    Review on Medicinal Plants Propagation: A Comprehensive Study on Role of Natural Organic Extracts in Tissue Culture Medium
    American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 3073-3088. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.520324

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=50185&

    The following sections are text that is identical to the four sets of sources below, word for word, without attribution to the source, or without quotation marks, as follows:
    From [1], 707 words (or 10.9% of total)
    From [2], 373 words (or 5.7% of total)
    From [3], 960 words (or 14.8% of total)
    From [4], 192 words (or 3% of total) (including some self-plagiarism)

    [1] Molnár Z, Virág E, Ordog V (2011) Natural substances in tissue culture media of higher plants. Acta Biol Szeged 55:123–127.
    [2] George EF, Hall MA, Klerk G-J De (2007b) The components of plant Tissue culture media ll: organic additions, osmotic and pH effects, and support systems. In: George EF, Hall MA, Klerk G-J De (eds) Plant Propag. by Tissue Cult. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 115–173 + George EF, Hall MA, Klerk G-J De (2007a) The components of plant tissue culture media I: macro- and micro-nutrient. In: George EF, Hall MA, Klerk G-J De (eds) Plant Propag. by Tissue Cult. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 65–113
    [3] Yong JWH, Ge L, Ng YF, Tan SN (2009) The chemical composition and biological properties of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) water. Molecules 14:5144–64. doi: 10.3390/molecules14125144
    [4] Other sources:
    Anonymous (2014) Plant Tissue Culture- Mavens Biotech Limited. http://www.mavensbiotech.com/Biotechnology/Plant Tissue Culture.html. Accessed 15 Oct 2014
    Lakshmi S, Benjamin J (2010) In vitro propagation of Hoya wightii ssp. palniensis KT Mathew, a highly vulnerable and endemic species of Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. African J Biotechnol 9:620–627. doi: 10.5897/AJB09.846
    Mehta J, Kumar V, Syedy M, et al (2012) In vitro shoot regeneration of Bacopa monnieri ( L .) using cyanobacterial media- a novel approach and effect of phytoregulators on in vitro micropropagation. Asian J Plant Sci Res 2:699–706.
    Sivanesan I, Jeong BR (2007) Direct shoot regeneration from nodal explants of Sida cordifolia Linn. In Vitr Cell Dev Biol – Plant 43:436–441. doi: 10.1007/s11627-007-9090-1
    Sridhar TM, Aswath CR (2014) Influence of additives on enhanced in vitro shoot multiplication of Stevia rebaudiana (Bert.)—An important anti diabetic medicinal plant. Am J Plant Sci 05:192–199. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.51025
    Tanwer BS, Choudhary R, Vijayvergia R (2010) In-vivo and in-vitro comparative study of primary metabolites and antioxidant activity of Andrographis paniculata. J Chem Pharm Res 2:489–495.

    The publisher of American Journal of Plant Sciences, SCIRP, is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “possible” predatory OA journals: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

    Finally, this study received the following funding: “The authors are thankful to Department of Biotechnology for providing financial assistance in the form of DBT sponsored Post Doctoral Fellowship (Dr .T. M. Sridhar).”

    Science For Society

    October 22, 2014 at 9:44 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 35,982 other followers

%d bloggers like this: