We’ve seen plagiarizers plagiarizing plagiarizers, but here’s what seems to be a first: A journal has retracted an article that duplicated text…from a paper that had been retracted for containing dubious data.
The Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science published the recycled paper, titled “Development and in vitro-in vivo characterization of chronomodulated multi-particulate drug delivery system of terbutaline sulphate for treatment of nocturnal asthma by box–Behnken statistical design.” The authors were from several institutions in India.
As the retraction notice explains:
It has been reported that some data used in this article were taken from a previous article. The editorial committee of this journal found that the data used in one table and figure were originally published in an earlier article authored by the same authors (Bajwa et al., 2017) and included in this article without appropriate reference and permission.
Thus, we retract this article from the literature according to the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (Wager et al., 2009).
Fair enough. But what the statement doesn’t indicate is that the purloined material had been retracted already for being rotten — kind of like an art thief who gets busted selling copies of a forgery.
The 2017 paper, “Development and in vitro-in vivo characterization of chronomodulated pulsatile delivery formulation of terbutaline sulphate by box-Behnken statistical design,” appeared in AAPS PharmSci Tech.
According to the retraction notice:
This article has been retracted by the journal because the editors have clear evidence that the scientific findings in this article are unreliable. The article describes the formulation and in vitro/in vivo testing of an Optimized Pulsatile Delivery Tablet (OP1) as follows: 10 mm diameter press-coated Pulsatile Delivery Tablet (PDT) that contains a 6 mm diameter Fast-Release Core Tablet (FRCT), prepared, characterized and tested in the rabbit pharmacokinetic study. The authors have confirmed to the editors that they actually prepared and tested a “special batch” of FRCT core tablets having a diameter of 2.5 mm contained in 5 mm press-coated PDT tablets having a diameter of 5 mm, but the use of this smaller FRCT/PDT is not described anywhere in the manuscript. Therefore, the editors believe that since the article does not describe the dosage form that was actually studied, the findings in the article are unreliable. All authors agreed to this retraction. The online version of this article contains the full text of the retracted article as electronic supplementary material.
We asked JAPS why they neglected to point out the retraction of the duplicated article. Associate editor Paras Sharma told us:
The retraction in our journal is based on the plagiarism and use of published data without appropriate permission. The DOI link given in first reference moves to author’s retracted article in other journal.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.