In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant has flagged a 2004 article that was “accidentally” duplicated from another paper published earlier that year — but did so in the form of a publisher’s erratum, not a retraction.
The editor of the journal justified the decision by arguing that the duplicated paper had been cited “over a dozen times” and was old enough to not warrant a retraction:
Considering that both articles were published over a decade ago and both have been referenced by other papers over a dozen times each, it seems like a retraction of one manuscript may damage the integrity of the literature more than using the erratum to point out the error to future scientists.
The study, “In vitro shoot regeneration from cotyledonary node explants of a multipurpose leguminous tree, Pterocarpus marsupium roxb,” developed a protocol for effectively growing shoots of the Indian Kino tree.
The first version has been cited 21 times and the duplicated version was cited 13 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the notice:
This article, published in In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 40, issue 5, 464–466 (DOI 10.1079/IVP2004548), is a duplicate version of another article entitled ‘In vitro shoot regeneration from cotyledonary node explants of a multipurpose leguminous tree, Pterocarpus marsupium roxb’ written by the same authors and which was accidently published in the same journal. We apologize to the readers of the journal for not detecting this omission which regrettably occurred during the publishing process and was not associated with the authors of the original manuscript. When citing this article, the initial publication should be used: In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology – Plant 40, issue 2, 167–170 (DOI 10.1079/IVP2003488).
David Duncan, the journal’s editor-in-chief and a senior science fellow at Monsanto, told us that the journal resolved the situation according to standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Quoting from the Instructions to the Authors:
“Publication Ethics: The journals In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology – Plant (both SIVB and IAPB) subscribe to the editorial standards and guidelines for editors and authors of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). A detailed explanation of our ethical standards can be found at http://publicationethics.org/resources/ code-conduct. These guidelines include a code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors.”
A person notified the journals of the specific problem. The situation was investigated and the erratum posted according to the standards set by the COPE guidelines.
However, COPE’s Retraction Guidelines specify that a duplicated (“redundant”) version of a paper should be retracted, and the original flagged:
If redundant publication has occurred (i.e. authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission or crossreferencing) the journal that first published the article may issue a notice of redundant publication but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.
When asked about the discrepancy, Duncan said:
The COPE guidelines indicate that “…The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity…“. Considering that both articles were published over a decade ago and both have been referenced by other papers over a dozen times each, it seems like a retraction of one manuscript may damage the integrity of the literature more than using the erratum to point out the error to future scientists. The two articles and the erratum are now electronically linked and the erratum indicates which article is the correct one to reference.
I would hope that in your article you do consider if there should be a “statute of limitations” of time or perhaps number of citations after which the integrity of the literature is best served by not retracting an article.
In our experience, most publishers who mistakenly print the same study twice end up retracting the duplicated version.
Commenters on PubPeer pointed out the duplication in February, and subsequently questioned why the redundant version hadn’t been retracted.
We’ve contacted the study’s corresponding author, Suresh Chand at Devi Ahilya University in Indore, India, and we’ll update if Chand responds.
Hat tip: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.
In June 2003, the journal Indoor Air published an article from our group. They mistakingly re-published it in the September 2003 issue. Upon being notified about their mistake, they published an erratum but did not retract the September 2003 paper. Thus, on PubMed both papers are still listed and we are listed on Dejavu as being plagiarisers. Both versions have attracted citations on the Web of Science and Scopus. I have given up trying to get the September 2003 article retracted.
That’s not a good situation, Rob. Could you perhaps clarify why you would want a formal retraction against your name? Retractions, as I understand it from the COPE guidelines, are used for research with clear evidence of unreliable findings and/or misconduct by the authors. Retractions are the most serious sanction against author/s. COPE’s hierarchy puts retractions above the other actions of “expression of concern” and “correction”.
I’m not convinced that retractions are appropriate to correct mistakes made by publishers. Yes, COPE’s retraction guideline lists redundant publication as a reason for retraction – but also specifically links the redundant publication to actions of the authors. The quote from the guideline cited above says: “(i.e. authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission or crossreferencing)”. There’s a similar statement on page 2 concerning redundant publications: “(i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications),”. Both statements links redundant publication (result in data being published or presented in multiple publications) to actions by the authors (“published”, “presented”).
In the cases here, the authors haven’t published or presented the same data in another publication – the publisher has. The notices are clear that the authors are in no way involved. The “retraction” is therefore completely unrelated to the research and in no way arose from actions of the authors. Using retractions to correct publisher errors seems very misleading here, and inconsistent with the intent of COPE’s retraction guidelines. Unfortunately I can’t find anything on COPE’s website (guidelines, codes of practice, case reports) that cover the roles and responsibilities of publishers, or correcting errors made by publishers.
??? The COPE Guidelines are pretty clear:
“Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: […] the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)”
Clearly the duplicate article should be retracted. Also, since any transparent retraction notice would clearly state that it was the fault of the journal for duplicating the article, no one could possibly blame Rob.
I wasn’t suggesting the duplicate publication shouldn’t be removed; my point is that the removal shouldn’t be called a “retraction”.
And I don’t think it matters what you call it. As I said, COPE guidelines also specify that the reason for the retraction have to be stated. A “retraction” is not a black mark on your name if it clearly has absolutely nothing to do with you.
I have seen a duplicate paper in different journals. Both journals retracted the said paper. I wonder if one journal should retain the original paper as a point of reference.