A paper plagiarizes an article retracted for plagiarism and other sins — but it isn’t being retracted. – Retraction Watch
We make a degree of by no means calling for a specific paper’s retraction, nor ever weighing in on whether or not a journal ought to have made that transfer. That can be, we regularly say, like a monetary reporter recommending shares. But a current expression of concern is sorely testing our resolve on the matter.
The expression of concern is for a 2014 article, “shRNA-mediated silencing of ZFX attenuated the proliferation of breast most cancers cells,” which appeared in Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, a Springer title, and was led by a crew from Zhejiang Cancer Hospital in Hangzhou.
Here’s the discover:
The Editors-in-Chief want to alert readers that there are some considerations associated to this article . Concern has been raised that there are textual and formatting similarities to this retracted article . There are additionally considerations in regards to the development of experimental reagents within the strategies, in addition to within the phrases chosen for reporting cell cycle influences. While we acknowledge that the overlap might outcome from recycling of language with related experimental methodologies, significantly by authors whose first language isn’t English, we now have not obtained any response from the authors relating to the above considerations. None of the authors have responded to correspondence about this Expression of Concern. Readers are suggested to interpret the main points of this article with warning.
Reference two is: Huang WY, Chen DH, Ning L, Wang LW (2012) Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13(5):1823–1827. https://doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.10.2891
Which, because the expression of concern states, has been retracted thusly:
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention has retracted the article titled “siRNA mediated silencing of NIN1/RPN12 binding protein 1 homolog inhibits proliferation and growth of breast cancer cells”(1) for purpose of similarity with a sequence of articles recognized by Byrne and Labbé (2).
1. Huang WY1, Chen DH, Ning L, Wang LW. siRNA mediated silencing of NIN1/RPN12 binding protein 1 homolog inhibits proliferation and progress of breast most cancers cells. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(5):1823-7.
2. J. A. Byrne and C. Labbé, “Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines,” Scientometrics, vol. 110, no. three, pp. 1471–1493, 2017.
Authors didn’t reply to request for remark.
Neither the authors nor the editor in chief of the journal the place the brand new expression of concern appeared has responded to our request for remark, both.
A scientific sleuth
Retraction Watch readers could recall the identify of the primary creator of the cited Scientometrics paper. We first wrote about her work as a scientific sleuth in early 2017, and have adopted it ever since. Byrne’s journey to turn into a watchdog started when:
she observed a number of papers that contained a mistake in a DNA assemble which, she believed, meant the papers weren’t testing the gene in query, related to a number of most cancers sorts.
Byrne’s work with Labbé has led to quite a few retractions and expressions of concern.
So, to recap: Highly suspicious overlap of papers — together with the Huang article — popping out of China on this subject (gene knockdowns in most cancers) has drawn scrutiny. A paper that clearly plagiarized from a now-retracted article which itself had “striking similarities” to analysis recognized as fraudulent … is allowed to face.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to assist our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you possibly can tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, electronic mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.