Solve this one! – Retraction Watch
A research spanning dozens of years, 4 deceased authors and a retraction for duplicate publication. Sounds like a recipe for an episode of that new present about medical detectives (not epidemiologists; detectives with weapons).
We’d like to have the ability to clarify, however, effectively, we will’t. What we do know is that the authors of a 2019 article in regards to the position of aluminum in neurologic illness have retracted their paper as a result of it’s a replica of an article a few of them had revealed in 2018. But that’s as clear as issues get.
Here’s the retraction discover, which, like several good thriller, is stuffed with query marks:
The Editor-in Chief of Molecular Neurobiology has retracted this article  on the request of the corresponding writer. This is as a result of it considerably overlaps with their earlier publication . Both articles report the identical outcomes and as such this article is redundant.
Walter J. Lukiw, Maire E. Percy, and Zhide Fang conform to this retraction. William J. Walsh and Yuhai Zhao don’t conform to this retraction. Aileen I. Pogue, Nathan M. Sharfman, Vivian Jaber, and Wenhong Li haven’t responded to any correspondence from the editor/writer about this retraction. Donald R. C. McLachlan, Catherine Bergeron, Peter N. Alexandrov, and Theodore P. A. Kruck are deceased. McLachlan, D.R.C., Bergeron, C., Alexandrov, P.N. et al. Mol Neurobiol (2019) 56: 1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-018-1441-x  McLachlan, D.R.C., Alexandrov, P.N., Walsh, W.J. et al. J Alzheimers Dis Parkinsonism (2018) eight(6): 457. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0460.1000457
The 2018 paper, we should always be aware, was revealed by OMICS, which has been ordered to pay the U.S. authorities $50 million for “unfair and misleading practices.”
Not a whole lot of solutions
The journal’s editor, Nicholas Bazan, didn’t reply to our question, however he did ahead it to a BioMed Central spokesperson Anne Korn, who informed us:
We have been contacted by a whistleblower concerning considerations a couple of attainable duplicate publication resulting from similarities between the beneath article and an article revealed in November 2018 within the Journal of Alzheimers Disease & Parkinsonism. The considerations have been investigated rigorously following a longtime course of and the article retracted.
We requested if the dissenting authors offered any rationale for doing so. Korn informed us:
[W]e deal with correspondence with authors as confidential, so we can not present additional perception into why the authors may need disagreed…
Nor might she shed any gentle in regards to the odd matter of the 4 deceased authors. McLachlan, a Canadian, died in 2017. However, we will’t discover any details about the deaths of the three others. [See update at end.]
Korn added that
We are persevering with to discover all facets of this matter rigorously…
She couldn’t inform us if Lukiw’s place as an affiliate editor of the journal influenced its determination to publish the now-retracted paper:
I’m afraid that we’re not in a position to disclose confidential issues referring to the appointments, contractual relationships and agreements with Editors of our journals.
Lukiw didn’t reply to our queries in regards to the articles.
Update, 1900 UTC, 1/28/20: Benjamin Guglielmi factors out:
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’ll be able to tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e mail us at email@example.com.