Clinical Endoscopy retracts sedation paper, creates neologism in process

Clinical Endoscopy, the official journal of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, has retracted a 2011 paper on sedation practices.

Although the retraction statement is underpowered for information, it has a charming neologism. To wit, the announcement for the paper, “Comparison of midazolam alone versus midazolam plus propofol during endoscopic submucosal dissection,” is a “noticement.”

Unfortunately, that’s about all that’s interesting about this retraction. Or rather, that’s the only thing on which we can comment, given the notice itself:

The article published at Clinical Endoscopy Vol. 44 No. 1, was withdrawn after request from authors. The pdf file will be removed from journal homepage with the noticement “withdrawn by authors”.

In fact, the “noticement” doesn’t even say that much. But that’s not how retractions are supposed to work. The article should remain available with a watermark across the pages for all to see. Simply wishing it out of the literature defeats the purpose of the process.

We reached the corresponding author, Seon Mee Park, by email, who told us:

We retract the article because of authorship conflict.

We were hoping for a bit more information but have not received a reply.

 

0 thoughts on “Clinical Endoscopy retracts sedation paper, creates neologism in process”

  1. In reply to Julia Demasi July 3, 2012 at 9:34 am

    I do not think that “it has a charming neologism” is being smug.

    I think that it is being too PC to say that. Is PC old-fashioned now?

  2. It is difficult to sound intelligent in a foreign language. I wish all my faux pas in foreign languages were as understandable as “noticement” is here. Wish I could remember the name, but there is a novel in which the foreign narrator has made very bad use of a thesaurus. He is constantly writing things like “Don’t dub me Bob” when he means “Don’t call me Bob.” I can’t remember anything about the book except the effort/satisfaction of deciphering where the narrator went wrong in his frequent incorrect use of words.

    Completely agree about leaving the paper up with a red stamp across it instead of removing it.

    Authorship conflict. Hm. And that means what? Maybe one of the authors disagrees with the conclusions and doesn’t want to be associated with them? Or maybe this is an undetected neologism. Maybe is it an author conflict — fists flying — that caused the authors to draw back. Um … to renege. Excuse me. To retract.

    1. There was a Monty Python skit in which a guy was using a Hungarian-to-English phrasebook from a very incompetent publisher.

      1. And then there is “English As She Is Spoke”. An actual book. Portuguese to English. I’m sure I sound like this when I venture into foreign languages.

      1. Indeed it is. Thank you. I should try reading it again. Maybe the second time I would have some brain cells left for the plot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *