One retraction notice says plagiarism. The other says it was an error in an algorithm. Which was it?
For the second time in a week, we've come across a retraction notice that gave the wrong reason for the retraction.
Last week, it was an Elsevier journal that called a plagiarized paper a duplicate of work by the same authors who'd written the original. Today, here's the story of a chapter in a book published by Springer Nature that manages to list two different reasons for retraction.
According to one notice for "In-silico Analysis of LncRNA-mRNA Target Prediction" in: D. Reddy Edla et al. (eds.), Advances in Machine Learning and Data Science, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 705, the chapter was retracted for plagiarism.
But according to the other notice, the retraction happened because Continue reading One retraction notice says plagiarism. The other says it was an error in an algorithm. Which was it?
Posted on September 3, 2018 August 31, 2018 Author Ivan OranskyCategories india retractions, publisher error, springer retractions1 Comment on One retraction notice says plagiarism. The other says it was an error in an algorithm. Which was it?
We finally have some clarity on the case of the erroneous retraction over at the Annals of Surgical Oncology.
Last week, we reported that the journal, and its publisher, Springer Nature, were having some trouble with a retracted presentation from a 2017 cancer meeting. Turns out, the issue involved crossed wires for similar articles in the journal by the same trio of researchers.
The Annals of Surgical Oncology (ASO) owes an apology to a group of researchers at two hospitals in South Florida.
Last month, the journal retracted a conference presentation about a device, from a company called Cianna Medical, that is designed to allow surgeons to home in to suspicious lumps in the breast and avoid needless damage to the surrounding tissue. According to the notice for "SAVI SCOUT RADAR – A non-wire non-radioactive localization device can be used for axillary lymph node surgery," the authors of the study had failed to obtain ethics approval for the research, which was originally presented in April 2017 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.
Trouble is, that part about lack of ethics approval is not true.