Author steps in to clarify vague tuberculosis retraction
You’ve got to love when an author is willing to detail the specifics of an unhelpful retraction notice.
This May, a paper came out in Journal of Thoracic Diseases about drug-resistant tuberculosis. It was retracted in June, for “some misconduct in the manuscript.”
Here’s the notice:
The article “Application status of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in the identification and drug resistance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis” (doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2014.02.19) that appeared on page 512-516 of the May 2014 issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease needs to be withdrawn due to some misconduct in the manuscript. We are sorry for the inconvenience caused.
Since that’s pretty vague and unhelpful, we reached out to corresponding author Jiayun Liu, who gave us a thorough rundown:
The review has been retracted at the request of authors.
The authors Ruixue Zhang, Yin Long, Wenfang He, Xiaoke Hao, and Jiayun Liu decided to retract the paper on the basis of following considerations: Some sentences of the review regarding the mechanisms of drug resistance are directly rewritten from another paper (Hrabák J, et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013; 26(1):103-114) and the latter was not cited, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism.
The authors are deeply sorry for the inconvenience caused to the journal and the scientific community.
Now, “could be viewed as a form of plagiarism” is one of those plagiarism euphemisms we really hate. But we certainly appreciate Liu’s willingness to give us the details, and wonder why the journal couldn’t see fit to include them.
The paper hasn’t been cited yet, according to Google Scholar.