You’ve been dupe’d: Data so nice, you see them twice

j repro infertLast Friday we resurrected a previous feature of Retraction Watch, compiling five retractions that appeared to be simple acts of duplication.

This week, we spotlight another five unrelated retractions which, as we said last week, cover duplications in which the same – or some of the same – authors published the same – or some of the same – information in two different papers.

Most duplications are straightforward — all authors simply send the same or similar study to two or more journals, a violation of most journals’ terms of use.  For instance:

1.  Fatty liver disease might increase the risk of abdominal operation in patients with fatty liver and the prevalence of cancer in first-degree relatives.  Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology.  2014.  25(S1):138-141.  Cited only by its retraction, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.  Retracted May 2015.

The following article is retracted from publication in Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology by decision of editors of the journal since it is a duplicate publication, which has been previously published in Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2015 Apr 14 DOI: 10.1007/s00508-015-0744-4.

2.  Environmental resistance and mechanical performance of basalt and glass fibers.  Materials Science and Engineering: A.  2010.  527(18–19): 4708–4715. Cited 62 times.  Retracted July 2015.

The article duplicates significant parts of a paper that had already appeared in Mater. Des., 2010, 31 (9) 4244–4250,  One of the conditions of submission of a paper for publication is that authors declare explicitly that the paper is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

In other cases, some co-authors republish material without the consent of his or her former co-authors – as in these next two examples.  #4 may be a short and sweet notice, but it likely left a bitter taste for three authors not included in the remaining version.

3.   A study on cognitive impairment and gray matter volume abnormalities in silent cerebral infarction patients. Neuroradiology. 2015. 57(8):783-9. Authors:  Wei Luo, Xun Jiang, Xiaofeng Wei, Shanshan Li,  Mengxiong Li.  Zero cites.  Retracted January 2016.

This article has been retracted by the authors due to the fact that it was published without permission and knowledge of the key authors of the study who published the same data in a different article (Yang T, Zhang L, Xiang M, Luo W, Huang J, Li M, Xiong X, Wang H. “Cognitive impairment and gray matter volume abnormalities in silent cerebral infarction” NeuroReport 2015 26(15):890-5.)

4.  Impact of lifestyle and dietary habits on hypovitaminosis D in type 1 diabetes mellitus and healthy children from Qatar, a sun-rich countryAnnals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2008.  53(3-4):215-222.   Authors:  Abdulbari Bener, Amer Alsaied, Mariam Al-Ali, Abdelmonem S Hassan*, Basma Basha, Aisha Al-Kubaisi, Amit Abraham, Marcellina Mian*, Gerardo Guiter, Ihab Tewfik*.  Cited 19 times.  Retracted September 2015. (*Not included in remaining article)

The editor and publisher of Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism wish to state that the above article has been retracted from the journal due to double publication [Acta Diabetol 2009;46:183–189].

Retractions also can result when authors reproduce the same study in different languages (get it? Because this one is about sperm…).

5.  Correlation of sperm associated Antigen 11 (SPAG11) and its isoforms with varicocele in rats.  Journal of Reproduction and Infertility. 2012. 12(4):241-247.  Authors: Hong Tian, Yong-Wei Huo, Jin-Song Zhou, Li-Rong Wang, Qiu-Yang Zhang, Shu-Dong Qiu.  The journal is not indexed by Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.  Retracted July/September 2015.

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Reproduction and Infertility (JRI) has recently confirmed that the manuscript titled: “Correlation of Sperm Associated Antigen 11 (SPAG11) and its Isoforms with Varicocele in Rats”, written by Hong Tian et al, published in volume 13, issue 4, pp. 241-247 has been published previously in Chinese. Therefore this paper is retracted, considering the fact that it is contrary to the journal’s policy. We regret the time that peer reviewers and others spent for evaluation of this paper and hope that there will be no repetition of this problems in the future.

Hat tip: Rolf Degen

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy.


Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.