About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Déjà vu: Double pub in the same issue earns a retraction

with 9 comments

biomedchromAlways do a careful reading of your galleys, editors.

We imagine readers of Biomedical Chromatography’s special issue, “Reminiscences of Chang Kee Lim,” did some flipping back and forth when they found the same paper published twice.

Here’s the resulting notice for “Determination of 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection after pre-column derivatization using 4-(N,N-dimethylaminosulfonyl)-7-hydrazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole”: 

The above article, published online on 25 May 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Michael Bartlett and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The retraction has been agreed because this article was accidentally published twice within the same issue of Biomedical Chromatography. For the version of record, please refer to:

Imazato, T., Shiokawa, A., Kurose, Y., Katou, Y., Kishikawa, N., Ohyama, K., Ali, M. F. B., Ueki, Y., Maehata, E. and Kuroda, N. (2014), Determination of 4-hydroxy-2-nonenal in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection after pre-column derivatization using 4-(N,N-dimethylaminosulfonyl)-7-hydrazino-2,1,3-benzoxadiazole. Biomed. Chromatogr., 28: 891–894. doi:10.1002/bmc.3204

The publishers take responsibility for this error and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

About these ads

Written by Cat Ferguson

August 28, 2014 at 11:30 am

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Here is another example of a paper (and its authors) bearing the stigma of a “retraction” when the fault lies with the journal. Isn’t there another word that could be used in these cases?

    Jan Witkowski

    August 28, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    • I totally agree, Jan. This incident should not be labeled retraction, withdrawal or anything else that might negatively tinge the reputation of the authors.

      How in the world does this sort of thing happen?!

      Miguel Roig

      August 28, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    • It’s a de-publication.

      AnonyMoose

      August 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    • True – perhaps the long-term solution is to de-stigmatize “retractions” while transferring the stigma to the causes of many retractions – plagiarism, image manipulation…etc.

      • It’s called incompetence and poor oversight and quality control (by editors and the publisher). The surprising thing was that it was by a Wiley journal. The same happened in Acta Horticulturae, published by the International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), in which the 2003 paper was recently retracted. The astonishing thing is that not a single member of the global horticultural community, particularly maedicinal plant researchers, and the authors of these two volumes, all of whom receive a complimentary copy, including the authors themselves, picked this up until 13 years later. The ISHS later apologised, but given the serious other problems that I have detected with this journal, the apology is at best reticent.

        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

        JATdS

        August 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm

  2. A similar situation happened to me in 2003. Had an article published in the June 2003 issue of Indoor Air, also a John Wiley & Sons journal. The publishers put exactly the same article in the 2003 September issue. They did publish an apology. However, they never formally retracted that later article with the situation being that both articles are still listed on PubMed and both have been cited in the literature. Thus, on first impression, I appear to be a (self)plagiariser.

    siebers

    August 28, 2014 at 2:36 pm

  3. I agree with Jan, not a retraction but an EDITORIAL COCK-UP, and it should be so labelled!

    Toby

    August 29, 2014 at 11:32 am

    • Using Toby’s apt terminology, another editorial cock-up at Wiley, leading to the retraction of a paper on the long-fingered bat published in Molecular Ecology Resources:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02546.x/pdf

      The retraction note states: “The above article, published on November 2008, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the Journal Managing Editor, Tim Vines, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The article was previously published in Volume 8 Issue 4 of the Journal and was inadvertently published a second time as a result of a publication error made without the authors’ knowledge.” If the authors had no knowledge, then why was their permission required to retract the botched double?
      Seems like Molecular Ecology Resources has another editorial cock-up:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.02086.x/pdf

      The retraction note states: “We regret that the artice ‘Development of microsatellite markers in the noxious red tide-causing dinoflagellate Heterocapsa circularisquama (Dinophyceae)’ was erroneously published twice by Wiley-Blackwell.” signed by the Managing Editor, Professor Harry Smith. Strange how the retraction notices’ wording differ, eve though it is the same journal and the same publisher, suggesting, just like the bat, how the publishers are also evolving.

      JATdS

      August 31, 2014 at 1:38 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 35,758 other followers

%d bloggers like this: