WITHDRAWN: Circular RNA circUBA1 promotes gastric cancer proliferation and metastasis by acting as a competitive endogenous RNA through sponging miR-375 and regulating TEAD4
Authors: Hongda Pan
Lei Ji
Zhangru Yang
Yibin Guo
Dazhi Xu
Dongwei Guo
Jianpeng Gao
Hong Lv
Pengju Chen
Jingxin Pan
Journal: Cancer letters (2020)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: Article withdrawal; Author(s); Editor; Publisher; Elsevier Policy
Affiliations: Department of Gastric Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Department of Internal Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China., Department of Internal Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, China., Department of Unit III & Ostomy Service, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital & Institute, Beijing, China., Department of Gastric Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China., State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China., Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China., Department of Medical Genetics, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Abstract:  This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Concern about Figure 2G. All panels appear to overlap with each other, with several cells that might have been added. Boxes of the same color highlight several areas that look similar to each other. ![file] , 
 Concern about Figure 4G and 4K. Some parts of the panels shown here appear to show overlap with each other, or with the panels shown in Figure 2G (marked above). I marked some of these with boxes of the same color, leaving others for the reader to add. ![file] ![file] , 
 Concern about Figure 1D. Bands look strangely placed onto a background, in particular in the top left and bottom right panels. In the bottom right panel, the two non-marker bands are surrounded by sharp transitions to the background. Could the authors please provide the original, uncropped image? ![file] , 
 Figure 1E. Some background specks appear to be visible multiple times. Shown with light yellow and blue ellipses. ![file] , 
 The three  scratch assays shown in Figure 2I, 4H, and 4L all appear to show a similar group of cells in the 24h panels. Marked below in yellow circles, this group consists of a round cell near the scratch edge, and two flat cells near the middle. In addition, two panels, marked with pink boxes, look remarkably similar. ![file] , 
 Figure 6D. * Red boxes. Two panels, depicting different treatments and proteins, appear to show an overlap. ![file] , 
 This article has been withdrawn. The withdrawal notice is very short and has no details. It reads:  This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https: www.elsevier.com about our-business policies article-withdrawal The link explains that  Withdrawals are different from Retractions because the article has not been officially published in print. Hopefully the images above speak for themselves. , 
 According to the publisher, the article was u201cwithdrawnu201d by the authors: u201cThe authors requested a withdrawal of their paper after they found errors in their figures. Before they requested their withdrawal, the journal was awaiting corrections to the paper before the final version of record was published. However, the withdrawal has gone through and currently there are no plans for revision or resubmission.u201d , 
 The distinction between  Withdrawal and  Retraction seems very artificial. The journal had accepted the paper after peer review, and it was published online, so the journal should take full responsibility and call this a  Retraction . The journal also should still show the original paper and provide more detail on why it was retracted. As of now, the complete original paper has just disappeared. This mysterious disappearance of a paper and uninformative notice appears to be in conflict with COPE guidelines on Retraction notices, found here: https: publicationethics.org retraction-guidelines , 
 That it was u201cawaiting correctionsu201d suggests that the peer review process was incomplete, which in turn suggests that it should not have been released online without a suitably highlighted warning to readers. It would be helpful if the authors or the journal editor or the reviewers could comment here to clear this up in the public domain, as there seem to be three categories of error: First, the errors found by the authors that led to the withdrawal; Second, any errors that arose from the the peer review, which presumably were the ones for which the journal editor was awaiting correction; Third, the u201cerrorsu201d picked up by Dr Bik, coincidentally highlighted here at the same time as the authors were contemplating withdrawal based on the errors they found. ,