‘Fiasco’ as publisher misses authors’ request to hold off publishing their paper on rubber gloves – Retraction Watch
The authors of a 2019 paper on rubber gloves have retracted their work after the journal to which they’d submitted their manuscript someway missed their request to put a hold on the article.
The paper, “Are rubber gloves marketed as accelerator-free actually freed from accelerators?,” was printed in Dermatitis, a Lippincott Williams & Wilkins title. The authors, led by Makenzie Pillsbury, of the University of Minnesota, had appeared for traces of potential allergens in gloves. According to the summary of the article:
A complete of 16 commercially obtainable medical gloves touted as “accelerator-free,” “sensitive,” or “low dermatitis potential” had been obtained and analyzed by way of mass spectrometry (liquid chromatography heated electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography heated electrospray high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry) to decide whether or not any of the 9 recognized rubber accelerators had been current (thiurams, carbamates, mercaptobenzothiazole, and diphenylguanidine).
Despite advertising and marketing claims to the opposite, all examined gloves had not less than 1 accelerant detected. Dipentamethylenethiuram disulfide, a thiuram, was present in all 16 gloves. Half of the gloves (eight/16) contained greater than 1 accelerator, with 1 glove having 5 rubber accelerators current.
But Pillsbury advised us that after the crew obtained phrase that their paper had been accepted, they seen some errors in their evaluation:
We requested a retraction in August 2019 after we seen some discrepancies within the authentic information, we had deliberate to wait to publish after finishing subsequent experiments. I used to be advised by the editors of the journal in August that our manuscript wouldn’t be printed. They tell us that there had been a miscommunication between their inside workers that allowed the unique paper to go into publication.
The consequence was the next:
After approval for publication, the authors requested the article not be printed however this request was inadvertently not adopted.
Another mistake: The journal seems to have two titles for the paper — a glitch the authors had been at a loss to clarify.
Co-author Sara Hylwa-Duefel advised us:
they confirmed with us that it could not be printed after we requested to hold it whereas we retested our information. They confirmed it could not be printed. We had been then shocked to discover that it was printed – particularly as we didn’t obtain a replica for editting as is normal or queries to be sure our affiliations and so forth had been right as [is] the norm!
as soon as our analysis is accomplished we are going to submit once more – though in all probability not to the identical journal after this fiasco.
The editor of the journal, Ponciano Cruz Jr., of UT Southwestern, advised us:
There was a change within the Production Staff on the Publisher and the choice to retract was not conveyed adequately by the outdated to the brand new personnel, together with the change in title at a time of the transition during which it was nonetheless due to be printed.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, comply with us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our each day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you may tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.