About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Duplication forces retraction of liver cancer paper

with 4 comments

biomed research intBioMed Research International has retracted a 2013 paper after it became clear that it was lifted from another 2013 paper about the same subject by some of the same authors.

According to the retraction notice:

The article titled “Downregulation of ADAM10 Expression Inhibits Metastasis and Invasiveness of Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma HepG2 Cells” [1] has been retracted as it is found to contain a substantial amount of material, without referencing, from the paper “ADAM10 is overexpressed in human hepatocellular carcinoma and contributes to the proliferation, invasion and migration of HepG2 cells,” by Shao Yuan, Shi Lei, and Shengli Wu published in Oncology Reports, vol. 2013, 1715-1722 pages, DOI: 10.3892/or.2013.2650.

The timing is curious here. According to the submission information, the retracted article looks like it may in fact have been the original.
About these ads

Written by Adam Marcus

June 18, 2014 at 11:30 am

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The publisher of the journal is Cairo-based Hindawi Publishing Corporation.

    Jeffrey Beall

    June 18, 2014 at 11:36 am

    • BMRI also seems to have a somewhat free-wheeling approach to special issues. If one examines the lead paper here, one is led to believe that it was in review (by someone who has previously coauthored with three of the authors on the paper) for two months before being accepted without revision, as the other paper lists a revised date.

      This is impressive, given that it’s merely a longer version (including at least one nearly verbatim paragraph duplication) of something published two years earlier at the well-known scientific outlet “The Bolen Report.”

      Narad

      June 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm

  2. This case is very much like a duplicate submission as both papers are similar and seem to have been under processing by two different journals at the same time. Therefore, in my opinion Hindawi has handled correctly to retract this paper immediately for duplicate submission. It is not the question which journal published the article first (and could keep the article). Both journals should retract the paper.

    Dave W.

    June 19, 2014 at 4:31 am

  3. We also have to credit Hindawi for putting up a proper retraction notice, rather than just deleting the duplicate paper as if it had never existed, as another OA publisher did when I told them about a duplicate in one of their journals. Hindawi feature in that story as well in a rather bizarre manner.


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 34,910 other followers

%d bloggers like this: