Authors “in shock” when image reuse doesn’t fly with publishers of paper on emu oil and stem cells – Retraction Watch
A workforce of researchers in Iran has misplaced a 2018 paper on the usage of emu oil to organize stem cells as a result of they attempted to recycle in the past revealed pictures.
The magazine advised us that a whistleblower had raised considerations in regards to the article, prompting an concerned back-and-forth with the authors and even efforts at lodging sooner than the eventual determination to drag the paper.
The article, “A biomimetic emu oil-blended electrospun nanofibrous mat for maintaining stemness of adipose tissue-derived stem cells,” gave the impression in Biopreservation and Biobanking. According to the summary:
Emu oil (EO) with anti inflammatory, antioxidative, and wound therapeutic houses will also be combined for getting ready bioactive nanofibrous scaffold. Adipose tissue-derived stem cells (ADSCs) are promising applicants for tissue engineering, and protecting their stemness doable is important for additional healing programs. … These effects display that the EO-blended nanofibrous mat can be utilized as a bioactive scaffold to reinforce cellular adhesion and proliferation whilst concurrently keeping up the stemness of ADSCs.”
The paper has been cited six instances, consistent with Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. But it appears that evidently some of the figures the researchers, from Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, had used to make their case have been retreads. Here’s the realize:
Biopreservation and Biobanking is formally retracting the object entitled, A Biomimetic Emu Oil-Blended Electrospun Nanofibrous Mat for Maintaining Stemness of Adipose Tissue-Derived Stem Cells, by way of Jalilzadeh-Tabrizi S, Pilehvar-Soltanahmadi Y, Alizadeh E, Alipour S, Dadashpour M, Nejati-Koshki Ok, and Zarghami N (Biopreservation and Biobanking 2018;16(2);66–76. DOI: 10.1089/bio.2017.0056) because of the submission of the similar pictures to other journals for various functions, however with none attribution, reference, or replica permission.
The article had to start with been corrected to incorporate an added reference, however that initiated an extra evaluation by way of the editorial management. The findings of that added analysis proved that no permission have been sought or granted to breed in the past revealed paintings, nor was once there any mentioned acknowledgment that the image gave the impression in in the past revealed subject matter. Therefore, the verdict was once made to retract the object from the medical literature.
Biopreservation and Biobanking is devoted to upholding the perfect requirements of peer evaluate and does now not tolerate any improprieties.
Sarah Jensen, the director of Editorial Services and Peer Review at Mary Ann Liebert, which publishes the magazine, advised us:
the verdict to in the end retract this text was once based totally on an nameless grievance which precipitated an investigation by way of our ethics editor. Originally, we had was hoping it was once going to be a question of an easy correction because of a decent mistake made on the authors’ phase, however after our ethics editor evaluated the grievance and all of the related related main points, together with different revealed papers, the verdict was once made to retract the paper as a substitute of correcting it.
The analysis by way of our ethics editor decided that the authors had certainly reused figures from no less than seven other prior papers with out correctly mentioning the former works. Part of the issue, we imagine, stemmed from a couple of submissions to other journals, present process evaluate and/or revisions concurrently, however with no declaration made to that impact to each and every magazine editor, which is a transparent violation of right kind protocols and highest practices for peer-reviewed journals. We imagine that the “whistleblower” contacted the editors of the ones journals during which the opposite papers have been revealed, and that no less than one of the ones journals contacted the writer(s) of the paper requesting rationalization, which precipitated the authors’ e mail to [editor] Dr. [James] Vaught’s place of work asking for that proper attributions be added to the broadcast paper.
I might additionally love to percentage with you a observation made by way of the whistleblower within the unique grievance: “The same yet inconsistent date of imaging and various overlapping sections sometimes shown with different magnifications, indicates that these authors have an archive of figures and they use the same figures as new data in different paper . Needless to say, this data duplication severely affects the results reported in these papers.” All of those main points have been what ended in the verdict to retract the paper. It must be famous, too, that the authors appealed that call, however Dr. Vaught denied the attraction.
About that correction discussed within the retraction realize. In reality, the alternate by no means did happen, consistent with Jensen, who expressed be apologetic about in regards to the complicated wording of the awareness. She mentioned the magazine could be including a realize clarifying the observation.
In reaction to our question in regards to the article, Nosratollah Zarghami, the senior writer of the paper, advised us:
You wish to know, once studying the forgotten in textual content quotation on this paper, I voluntarily cooperated with the magazine and its editor (Dr. Jim Vaught) dated June 12, 2019 to in truth deal with the right kind quotation within the paper as temporarily as imaginable. Fortunately, with the assist of editor, the object was once corrected and the reference quantity 17 (Available in reference record; Pilehvar-Soltanahmadi et al 2017-https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.05.015) was once added to the Fig1 and Fig 2 (please see the general model of the broadcast paper because the attachment 1). After about 2 weeks, sadly, the magazine determined to retract this text consistent with an nameless grievance with out giving an opportunity to the authors to have a complete reaction to the allegations. At this second, all of us authors are in surprise as a result of of the verdict.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to reinforce our paintings, apply us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, upload us on your RSS reader, or subscribe to our day by day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s now not in our database, you’ll be able to tell us right here. For feedback or comments, e mail us at [email protected].