Archive for the ‘wolters kluwer lippincott’ Category
The editors of an anesthesiology journal have retracted a paper about predicting how patients will respond to a procedure, after the results of an investigation cast doubt on the validity and originality of the work.
According to the retraction notice, the editors became concerned about the validity of the data and conducted an investigation, which found irregularities, “including misrepresentation of results.” Because the authors could not provide adequate evidence to assuage these concerns, the editors decided to retract the paper.
The paper — about which facial muscles best predict if a patient is ready to be intubated — had already been flagged on F1000: A few years ago, two anesthesiologists from Florida commented that they found the article “confusing,” and felt that the authors “did not prove their hypothesis.”
Here’s the retraction notice for “Comparison of four facial muscles, orbicularis oculi, corrugator supercilii, masseter or mylohyoid, as best predictor of good conditions for intubation: A randomised blinded trial,” published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology in 2013 and cited once: Read the rest of this entry »
When a group of authors decided to write up a curious case of a 35-year-old woman with a mysterious mass that took 11 years to be diagnosed, they tried repeatedly to contact the patient for her permission. When they couldn’t reach her, they published the paper anyway, removing any identifiable information.
But the report apparently included enough details for the patient to recognize herself — and when she read the paper, she asked the authors to retract it.
That’s the story according to the publisher of the 2016 case study, which recently retracted it with this notice:
According to the retraction notice in the International Journal of Molecular Medicine (IJMM), the authors intended that the two different papers offered “different research perspectives.”
Meanwhile, the Chinese Medical Journal — which published the same images one month later — has issued an expression of concern (EOC), noting it “should not be considered as a statement regarding the validity of the work.” Both papers describe how cells regulate blood flow to the retina.
Normally, journals choose to retract the most recent paper containing duplicated images, but in this case, the IJMM paper was published online in February 2016, and the Chinese Medical Journal in March.
Mukund Jagannathan, the journal’s editor-in-chief and a plastic surgeon in India, told Retraction Watch:
The patient wrote to the editor, mentioning that her photo was present in the article originally published, and politely asked us to remove her photos from public display on the Internet.
Asked whether the journal considered issuing a partial retraction to only hide the patient’s identity, Jagannathan said: Read the rest of this entry »
The 2012 paper in the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) told the tale of a 14-year old boy with Delleman syndrome, a condition that often results in the development of cysts within the cavities of the skull, leading to malformations in the eyes, brain, and skin.
Mabel Nocito, the study’s first and corresponding author from Hospital Churruca in Buenos Aires, Argentina told us the parents initially gave permission to publish their son’s picture, but then became concerned when they realized the paper was freely accessible: Read the rest of this entry »
Interestingly, two authors of the newly retracted papers — Yu-Tao Xiang from the University of Macau in China and Gabor Ungvari from the University of Western Australia — also recently co-authored another paper on an entirely different topic that has received a lengthy correction. That paper — on the use of organs from executed prisoners in China — raised controversy for allegedly reporting a “sanitized” account of the practice. The correction notice, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was accompanied by a critics’ rebuttal to the paper.
According to Xiang, the newly retracted papers in The Journal of ECT — which examined the efficacy of ECT in treating schizophrenia — were pulled due to “genuine errors” resulting from differences in language. All the authors agree with the retraction, Xiang noted.
Xiang told us: Read the rest of this entry »
A journal has retracted an abstract after discovering the author didn’t submit it — and also because it appears “highly similar” to a previous publication in Chinese.
The abstract was presented at the 2nd International Conference on Biomedicine and Pharmaceutics in 2014, and lists Qing Guo as the sole author, based Wuhan, China at the China University of Geosciences.
According to the retraction notice, published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine last December, the organizer of the conference discovered Guo hadn’t consented to publish the abstract — moreover, it appeared to overlap with another article in Chinese, written by different authors: Read the rest of this entry »
So from time to time we’ll compile a list of retractions that appeared relatively straightforward, just for record-keeping purposes.
Often, these seemingly straightforward retractions involve duplications, in which authors — accidentally or on purpose — republish their own work elsewhere.
Sometimes journals and authors blame this event on “poor communication,” our first example notes:
There’s so much publishing news to report, we don’t always get to cover every retraction when it appears. To get the word out more quickly, sometimes we publish a group of papers pulled for similar reasons, such as duplications. Below, we present five recent cases of plagiarism, such as using text or figures that the authors didn’t originally write.
We’ve added the date of retraction where we could find it:
Read the rest of this entry »
The authors of a study about spinal fusion surgery have retracted it after realizing the cohort study was described as a prospective, randomized trial.
The last author told us he believed the incorrect wording was added to the paper — and the title — by accident. Even though he said the journal Spine suggested correcting it, the authors chose to retract the paper entirely.
The abstract of the study describes the design as a:
Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
But according to the retraction notice for “Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate versus rhBMP-2 in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,” the abstract was not accurate: