In February, we brought you the story of Konstantin Meyl, a
professor who claims to have developed “a self-consistent field theory which is used to derive at all known interactions of the potential vortex”
At the time, one of Meyl’s papers — which a reviewer had called “way out there” — had just been retracted, for duplication. Now a second paper — among the works from which the first retracted paper had drawn — has been retracted.
Here’s the notice from the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling (which is buried in a footnote at the bottom of the paper):
This article has been retracted because the author submitted and published a highly similar article elsewhere:
 Meyl, K., 2012: DNA and Cell Resonance: Magnetic Waves Enable Cell Communication, DNA and Cell Biology 31 (4), 422-426 (Received for publication August 15, 2011 / Received in revised form September 2, 2011 / Accepted September 2, 2011)
 Meyl, K., 2012: Task of the introns, cell communication explained by field physics, Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling 6 (1), 53-58 (Received for publication August 20, 2011 / Accepted: September 1, 2011 / Published online: September 18, 2011)
The author had submitted his work to the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling clearly stating it was at that time not being considered for publication elsewhere. After thorough investigation the senior editorial team of the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling must conclude that a similar manuscript was submitted to the journal ‘DNA and Cell Biology’ before the submission to the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling and that this highly similar manuscript was still under consideration by ‘DNA and Cell Biology’ at the time of the submission to the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling. This goes against the policy of the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling. The Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling has retracted this manuscript. The author has been informed about the reasoning behind the retraction decision and did not agree with the retraction.
The paper has not been cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Hat tip: Ulrich Berger