After the publication of our paper, we noticed an error in Fig. 2G. Specifically, a panel of representative images were misplaced into the EdU results (si-NC group of Huh-7 cells) during the process of our final figure assembly. We carefully verified the original data again, corrected the mis-incorporated images and provided the correct version of Figure 2G below.The conclusion of our research was not affected by the error. In this respect, all authors have agreed to the erratum, and we sincerely regret any annoyance the negligence in our work may have caused.


In "Predictors of Playing Augmented Reality Mobile Games While Walking Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior: Web-Based Survey" :e191) the authors noted one error.In Table 6, the results for the factor “Enjoyment” in the third block were shifted one column to the right. The original table can be seen in The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on June 19, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Atxn1154Q/2Q andAtxn12Q/2Q mousemodels.” When describing the mouse amino acid locations for the two mutationsmade in the AXH domain of ATXN1, we erroneously stated that human V591 and S602correspond to mouse V620 and S631, respectively. The corrected text should read“Please note that human V591 and S602 correspond to mouse V566 and S577,respectively.” This has now been updated online. The authors apologize for theerror.In the originally published paper, there was one error in the STAR Methodssection “Generation of


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been submitted for publication prior to its submission to


Retraction Note:J Exp Clin Cancer Res38, 139 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-019-1134-yThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Concerns have been raised about Fig. 3a, specifically:The 0h control panels for U87 and U251 appear to be identicalThe 0h NF 25µM panels for U87 and NF 25µM appear to be identicalThe 0h NF 30 µM panels for U87 and U251 appear to partially overlapThe 24h control panels for U87 and U251 appear to be identicalThe 24h NF 25 µM panels for U87 and U251 appear to partially overlapThe 24h NF 30 µM panels for U87 and U251 appear to partially overlapThe 48h control panels for U87 and U251 appear to partially overlapThe 48 NF 25 µM panels for U87 and U251 appear to be identicalThe Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.Authors Zizhuo Li and Xiuhua Yang agree with this retraction. The other authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Subretinal injection is performed in vitreoretinal surgery with two main aims, namely, the subretinal delivery of therapeutic agents and subretinal injection of fluid to induce a controlled and localized macular detachment. The growing interest in this technique is mainly related to its suitability to deliver gene therapy in direct contact with target tissues. However, subretinal injection has been also used for the surgical management of submacular hemorrhage through the subretinal delivery of tissue plasminogen activator, and for the repair of full-thickness macular holes, in particular refractory ones. In the light of the increasing importance of this maneuver in vitreoretinal surgery as well as of the lack of a standardized surgical approach, we conducted a comprehensive overview on the current indications for subretinal injection, surgical technique with the available variations, and the potential complications. Subretinal injection is a delicate surgical maneuver whose application in vitreoretinal surgery is progressively increasing. This is mainly due to the suitability of subretinal injection to deliver a controlled amount of therapeutic agent directly to the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells and photoreceptors. Additional advantages include the need for a reduced concentration of drug and the delivery in an immune-privileged and anatomically closed subretinal space ,2. FurthBased on this, subretinal injections are now the established preferred route of administration of gene therapy for the treatment of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), where RPE cells and photoreceptors are primarily affected . In termDespite the growing role of subretinal injection in ophthalmic surgery, there is no standardized surgical technique, and different variations are described in the currently available literature . With thInherited retinal diseases (IRDs) comprise a small proportion of all retinal diseases. They are a group of diseases with a multitude of phenotypic expressions, wherein the etiology is a genetic abnormality within the cells of the retina or choroid ,10. SincSubretinal injection is the preferred route of administration of gene therapy as it is superior to the other potential routes, which include delivery into the anterior chamber and vitreous cavity ,9,11.Indeed, the subretinal delivery of a therapeutic agent allows the direct delivery to the targeted disease cells with less overflow into other uninvolved sites, low immunogenicity, good biodistribution control, and the overcoming of limitations of other routes of administration, such as the poor penetration of the viral vector through the internal limiting membrane (ILM) in case of intravitreal injection ,12,13.Each patient should be assessed on an individual basis through a comprehensive assessment including clinical appearance and genotyping, in order to evaluate the suitability for the current available gene therapies.The patient may be pretreated with oral corticosteroids to reduce the immune response to viral vectors, which has been described with retinal gene therapy . The steThe standard technique for subretinal injection of gene therapy involves carrying out three-port 23- or 25-gauge (G) vitrectomy (PPV). After inducing the posterior vitreous detachment (if needed) and completing the core and peripheral vitrectomy along with peripheral retina examination, it should be ensured that the injection site is completely clear of any residual vitreous. This maneuver can be facilitated by the use of diluted triamcinolone acetonide injected intravitreally to the site of interest.The site of gene therapy injection should be selected taking care to avoid areas of advanced retinal atrophy, epiretinal membranes (ERMs), blood vessels, and the papillomacular bundle . If needThere are different ways in which the subretinal injection can then be performed, namely, manually or automatically, and with or without formation of a pre-bleb ,17 AutomCreation of a pre-bleb with balanced salt solution (BSS) prior to the subretinal injection of gene therapy vector has the potential benefit of conserving viral vector . Indeed,A 23- or 25-G cannula with a retractable cannula, with size variable from 38- to 41-G, is then attached to the VFIM syringe ,16,20. TThe injection pressure is then set on the machine, more commonly between 12–18 psi ,16. YounA useful adjunct during the process of subretinal injection can be the microscope-integrated optical coherence tomography (MI-OCT). The MI-OCT reticule can be positioned close to the injection site prior to insertion of the cannula. Once the injection begins, if the cannula is correctly placed, the immediate separation and elevation of the retina from RPE is seen. MI-OCT allows monitoring of successful bleb creation with the “fleur de lis” sign, with the central “stem” made by the subretinal cannula and the petals on either side made by the adjacent retina elevated by the subretinal bleb . MI-OCT If the gene vector is injected after the formation of the pre-bleb, the same retinotomy should be used for the vector injection. Three main complications can be associated with the creation of the pre-bleb and the subsequent gene therapy injection. In particular, a second retinotomy can be created accidentally or the first retinotomy can be widened. leading to an increased risk of reflux of the vector. This can potentially not only reduce the drug in the subretinal space where it is needed, but also increase the risk of immune reaction to the viral capsids escaping into the vitreous cavity. Finally, as mentioned above, the higher subretinal volume can increase the risk of retinal overstretching and, potentially, FTMH formation if the fovea is detached.If, no pre-bleb has been created, the vector itself is used to detach the retina and create the bleb . SometimAfter the drug has been delivered into the subretinal space, a vitreous cavity washout is performed to remove any vector that has refluxed into the vitreous cavity ,16,21. ASome limitations of subretinal injections include physiological surgeon tremor, and instrument drift. A potential future development was investigated by Ladha et al., who showed that robotic-assisted subretinal injection helps reduce the aforementioned surgeon-related factors when performing subretinal injections in artificial retina models . SeveralAn alternative to the traditional subretinal injection technique following vitrectomy is being explored currently using an orbital subretinal delivery system (Gyroscope Therapeutics Orbit SDS™). In this technique, a flexible cannula mounted on a delivery system is introduced into the suprachoroidal space through a scleral incision and progressed towards the posterior pole using MI-OCT, before gently introducing the microneedle into the subretinal space . This suSubmacular hemorrhage is a harmful and sight-threatening complication associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration and polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy, but, less commonly, it can also be associated with ocular trauma, pathological myopia, or rupture of retinal arterial microaneurysm . The accSeveral therapeutic options, and combinations of them, have been proposed for the management of submacular hemorrhage, including antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, photodynamic therapy, pneumatic displacement using expansile gases, intravitreal injection of tPA, and PPV. PPV in this context allows the performance of different maneuvers, such as subretinal injection of tPA, active drainage of subretinal blood, RPE patch grafting, macular translocation, or removal of the choroidal neovascularization ,33.The rationale of the subretinal injection of tPA relies on the thrombolytic activity of this serine protease which binds the fibrin, forming a complex able to activate the plasminogen to plasmin, and, thus, has the ability to lyse the blood clot. By liquefying the blood, tPA can not only facilitate its drainage/displacement but also reduce the risk of iatrogenic damage to photoreceptors during clot removal as well as the need for large retinotomies and the associated risk of retinal detachment, epiretinal membrane (ERM), and proliferative vitreoretinopathy .The use of subretinal tPA was first described by Peyman et al.  and invoIn addition, several surgical variants have been described and multiple aspects of this surgical technique are still not standardized, such as the site of injection, the dose of tPA, the need to drain the subretinal blood, and the use of intraoperative adjuvants.Different sites have been proposed for the injection, including the superior edge of the SMH ,39 and tThe concentration of tPA used is more commonly 12.5 μg/0.1 mL , but canRecently, the first in-human randomized controlled trial compared surgical outcomes  of robot-assisted versus conventional manual subretinal injection of tPA for SMH . This piThe subretinal injection of BSS to induce a macular detachment has been proposed as surgical option for the primary or, more commonly, secondary repair of FTMH . The mecSubretinal injection of BSS for FTMH repair is usually facilitated through standard 23- or 25-G PPV . After PSubretinal injection can be associated with different intraoperative and postoperative complications; however, the exact rates of these complications have not been established due to the paucity of patients treated and of studies analyzing long-term outcomes.Subretinal injection can cause iatrogenic RPE damage/irregularities due to direct mechanical trauma, both from the instrumentation and the flow rate of the therapeutic agent/BSS ,20,21,55Another severe complication that may occur is the formation of FTMH, usually as a result of overstretching of the fovea during the injection ,21,25,55Finally, as the subretinal injection is performed in the context of PPV, additional generic complications can be associated with the whole procedure, such as iatrogenic retinal tears, cataract formation, alterations of intraocular pressure, retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, bleeding, and vision loss .There are a number of potential complications that are specifically associated with subretinal gene therapy injection. One of the main complications specific of subretinal gene therapy is the reflux of viral vector and the potential subsequent intraocular inflammation ,14,15. IRecently, the development of progressive perifoveal chorioretinal atrophy, not related to the site of injection, has been described as a postoperative complication of the subretinal injection of voretigene neparvovec-rzyl; however, no predisposing or intraoperative factors have been so far associated with this complication . AtrophiSubretinal injection is now an established technique for drug delivery into the subretinal space, in particular due to the progressive evolution of gene therapy as well as, more recently, cell therapy. Indeed, ongoing trials are evaluating the therapeutic potential of therapies based on the delivery into the subretinal space of embryonal stem cells (hESCs) and human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSCs) in eyes affected by age-related macular degeneration and Stargardt disease ,62. The


Retraction Note: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2021) 52:2627–264310.1007/s10803-021-05120-7The Publisher and the Editors-in-Chief are retracting this article. After publication concerns were raised with respect to the methodology used in this article. Post-publication review by a number of experts in the field has confirmed the following:Misrepresentation of the incidence of autism and insufficient attention given to various other factors that might account for apparent changes in ratesUse of unrepresentative dataNo valid justification for the mechanisms proposed for preventionArbitrary and insufficiently justified use of the birth cohort 1931 as an origin for the time trendUse of higher estimates and assumptions that inflated costs, together with failure to consider discrete events that occurred in referent years, including changes in definitions, alternative surveillance methods, and alternative explanations which may have contributed to changes in diagnosis.In addition, the Conflict of Interest statement does not accurately reflect the non-financial interests of the authors.The Editors-in Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the conclusions presented. Mark Blaxill, Toby Rogers and Cynthia Nevison disagree with this retraction.


Open Biol.9, 190095. (Published online 4 September 2019). (doi:10.1098/rsob.190095)Following the publication of ‘MALAT1 promotes gastric adenocarcinoma through the MALAT1/miR-181a-5p/AKT3 axis’, the Editorial team have concerns regarding the validity of the data used in this study.We are issuing an expression of concern here and investigating this as a matter of urgency; we will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible.


There is an error in


Leukemia 10.1038/s41375-022-01517-0, published online 15 February 2022Correction to: Owing to errors introduced during the proofreading process, the label « CB-ECFC » was erroneously added to the Figure.


Shalan  The Royal Society of Chemistry is publishing this Expression of concern in order to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the FESEM data in Fig. 3c, XPS data in Fig. 4a and c, the EQE spectra in Fig. 5b, and the Nyquist curves in Fig. 6b. An investigation is underway, and an Expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until a final outcome is reached.Jeremy Allenth November, 202320Nanoscale Advances.Executive Editor,


II, PdII and PtII tetrathiolate bridges’ by Manuel Quiroz et al., Chem. Sci., 2023, 14, 9167–9174, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SC01546G.Correction for ‘Magnetic coupling between Fe(NO) spin probe ligands through diamagnetic Ni The authors regret that a co-author, Zachary Martinez, was omitted in error from the author list of the published article.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


There was an error in the original publication . In the In Table 1, a correction is needed for the tetracycline resistance breakpoints: “6” should be replaced with “16”.The authors apologize for any inconvenience this change may cause. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected because the correction involves a typing error that was not caught during proofreading.This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Correction: Animal Cognition  10.1007/s10071-023-01788-9Unfortunately the authors given name and family name were swapped and the correct names are given below. The affiliation "Research Station Haidlhof, Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria" is added. The Electronic Supplementary Materials are added. Some references were missing the DOIs and are included which is given below. The original article has been corrected.Elisabeth Suwandschieff.Amelia Wein.Remco Folkertsma.Thomas Bugnyar.Ludwig Huber.Raoul Schwing.Supplementary file1 (PDF 411 KB)Supplementary file2 (PDF 517 KB)Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.


Recent studies described 2–4 Hz oscillations in the hippocampus of rats performing stationary locomotion on treadmills and other apparatus. Since the 2–4 Hz rhythm shares common features with theta (5–12 Hz) oscillations—such as a positive amplitude-running speed relationship and modulation of spiking activity—many have questioned whether these rhythms are related or independently generated. Here, we analyzed local field potentials and spiking activity from the dorsal CA1 of rats executing a spatial alternation task and running for ~15 s in a wheel during the intertrial intervals both before and after muscimol injection into the medial septum. We observed remarkable 4-Hz oscillations during wheel runs, which presented amplitude positively correlated with running speed. Surprisingly, the amplitude of 4-Hz and theta oscillations were inversely related. Medial septum inactivation abolished hippocampal theta but preserved 4-Hz oscillations. It also affected the entrainment of pyramidal cells and interneurons by 4-Hz rhythmic activity. In all, these results dissociate the underlying mechanism of 4-Hz and theta oscillations in the rat hippocampus. The rodent hippocampus expresses abundant rhythmic activity across distinct and sometimes overlapping frequency ranges . Theta  band emerge during quiet behaviors and slow-wave sleep episodes but are typically suppressed during locomotor activity , 18. TheRats performed a spatial alternation task on a U-shaped maze and ran for ~15 s on a wheel during the intertrial intervals . ConsistAnimals ran faster at the wheel , which cNext, we evaluated how medial septum inactivation affects 4-Hz and theta oscillations in the wheel. Muscimol injection reduced the running speed on the wheel , with noWe then evaluated whether the effects of medial septum inactivation on 4-Hz and theta oscillations were dependent on running speed in the wheel. Muscimol injection did not affect the 4-Hz amplitude-running speed relationship, while reduced theta amplitude . NoteworWe evaluated autocorrelograms and power spectra of the spiking activity of putative interneurons and pyramidal cells during maze and wheel runs. Corroborating previous studies, autocorrelograms of spiking activity during maze runs presented strong rhythmicity in the theta band . We found that theta and 4-Hz instantaneous amplitudes were inversely related (rho = -0.28), which differed from previous reports using a virtual reality apparatus . These rTo evaluate this possibility, we tested whether pharmacological inactivation of the medial septum through intracerebral microinjections of muscimol affected hippocampal 4-Hz oscillations. As expected , 21, musIt is still unclear why 4-Hz oscillations are expressed in stationary locomotion but not usually observed during translational running conditions. Previous studies presented preliminary data on speed-modulated 4-Hz during wheel runs , 7. HoweTheta oscillations dominate the hippocampus during translational locomotion, with amplitude and frequency positively associated with running speed and acceleration , 23. WheIt is also unknown whether 4-Hz oscillations observed during stationary runs relate to the slower theta oscillations typically at frequencies around 5 Hz observed spontaneously or in response to stimuli in urethane-anesthetized rodents . CurrentFinally, the present work provides pharmacological and electrophysiological evidence that hippocampal 4-Hz and theta oscillations are independently generated during stationary locomotion.http://datadryad.org/ under a public domain dedication license.The dataset used in this study was previously acquired at the Pastalkova Lab on the Janelia Research Campus  and madeTwo 64-channel linear silicon probes (Neuronexus or Janelia RC) were bilaterally implanted at the dorsal CA1 area  of the rat hippocampus . Local field potentials (LFP), spiking activity, and digital video recordings were obtained during a delayed spatial alternation memory task in a U-shaped maze coupled to a running wheel in which animals ran (~15 s) during the intertrial intervals. Electrophysiological and behavioral recordings were obtained before  and after  muscimol microinjections into the medial septum. Detailed experimental procedures can be found in previous publications , 27.All data analyses were performed using custom-made and built-in routines in MATLAB . First, LFP recordings were notch-filtered between 55 Hz and 65 Hz to remove 60 Hz electrical noise. LFP signals were visually inspected to detect time intervals presenting electrical or movement artifacts. Next, time intervals in which the amplitude of LFP signals was larger than two times the standard deviation were excluded from further analysis (only recordings from rat A943 presented artifacts). Epochs presenting locomotion speed on the maze and in the wheel higher than 10 cm/s were further analyzed.We used the “eegfilt” function  to obtaThe rhythmicity of interneurons’ and pyramidal cells’ spiking activity was estimated through autocorrelograms (ACG) and power spectral densities (PSD) of spike times. Only neurons with an average firing rate larger than 1 Hz during maze and wheel runs were further analyzed. We used the “xcorr” function  or median and quartiles over trials, as indicated. We used the Shapiro-Wilk test to evaluate data normality. The Wilcoxon signed-rank (WSR) test or paired t-test was used to compare maze and wheel running conditions. The Wilcoxon rank-sum (WRS) test or Student’s t-test was used comparing wheel runs before and after muscimol injections, and between wheel runs previous to correct and incorrect choices. The “corr” function (option type “Spearman”) from the Statistics and Machine Learning Toolbox was used to obtain the Spearman’s rank-based correlation coefficients (rho) between speed-amplitude and speed-frequency at the 4-Hz and theta bands  and 4-Hz-filtered signals (cyan) recorded during maze and wheel runs before  and during maze and wheel runs after  muscimol administration. The upper, middle, and lower panels depict LFP signals recorded from three different rats . Only epochs of running speed larger than 10 cm/s are shown.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S2 Fig(A) Peak frequency within the 4-Hz band during maze and wheel runs . (B) Peak frequency within the theta band during maze and wheel runs . ** indicate p < 0.01 at the WSR test.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S3 Fig(A) Percentage of correct choices before  and after  muscimol administration into the medial septum . (B) The absolute number of correct (green) and incorrect (blue) choices before  and after muscimol injection . (C) Histograms of 4-Hz band power (left) and theta band power (right) during wheel runs previous to correct (green) and incorrect (blue) choices. (D) Distribution of 4-Hz peak frequency (left) and theta peak frequency (right) during wheel runs before correct (green) and incorrect (blue) trials.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S4 Fig(A) Scatter plots of running speed and the instantaneous amplitude of 4-Hz oscillations before and after muscimol from individual rats. The upper, middle, and lower panels show data from rats A498, A543, and A943, respectively. The individual rho- and p-values are A498: Pre, rho = 0.39, p < 0.01; Post, rho = 0.41, p < 0.01. A543: Pre, rho = 0.25, p < 0.05; Post, rho = 0.57, p < 0.01. A943: Pre, rho = 0.36, p < 0.01; Post, rho = 0.08, p = 0.062. (B) Scatter plots of running speed and the instantaneous amplitude of theta oscillations before and after muscimol. A498: Pre, rho = 0.38, p < 0.01; Post, rho = 0.17, p < 0.01. A543: Pre, rho = 0.53, p < 0.01; Post, rho = 0.53, p < 0.01. A943 Pre, rho = 0.03, p = 0.057; Post, rho = 0.12, p < 0.01.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S5 Fig(A) Speed distributions in subsets of wheel runs ranging from 55 cm/s to 63 cm/s before (red) and after (blue) muscimol injection . (B) Average power spectra at 0–12 Hz during wheel runs before (red) and after (blue) muscimol injection in subsets of trials matched for running speed. Solid lines represent the mean and dashed lines represent ± SEM. (C) Boxplots showing the distribution of power in the 3–5 Hz band during wheel runs before and after muscimol injections in the same subsets of trials as before . (D) Distribution of power in the theta (6–10 Hz) band during wheel runs before and after muscimol injections in the same subsets of trials as before . ** indicate p < 0.01 at the WRS test.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S6 Fig(A) Relationship between 4-Hz and theta amplitude in the wheel before  and after  muscimol injection. (B) Relationship between 4-Hz and theta peak frequency in the wheel before  and after muscimol injection .(TIF)Click here for additional data file.S7 Fig(A) ACG amplitudes of interneurons’  and pyramidal cells’  spikes at the 4-Hz frequency range. (B) ACG interpeak intervals of interneurons’  and pyramidal cells’  spikes at the 4-Hz frequency range. Red and blue bars depict wheel runs before and after muscimol injections, respectively.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.


This article has been corrected at the request of the submitting author to change a minor typo.The last sentence of the introduction has been changed from “One severe complication of EMH is cord compression, which could result in including motor and sensory impairment” to “One severe complication of EMH is cord compression, which could result in motor and sensory impairment”.The authors deeply regret that this error was not identified and addressed prior to publication.


Cgena3/CgENA3 and that of ΔCgena4/CgENA4 on CM medium supplied with 0.6 M KCl. The corrected Figure 3 appears below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication , there w


Sci., 2021, 12, 15533–15542, https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC05112A.Correction for ‘Multi-stimuli programmable FRET based RGB absorbing antennae towards ratiometric temperature, pH and multiple metal ion sensing’ by Kavita Rani  The unit of the temperature sensitivity should be %°CThe Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


The authors regret that the original version of our paper, unfortunately, contained incorrect pictures in Figure 2, where the GADPH bands were mistakenly used for similar experiments. The correct version of Figure 2 is shown below.The correction made in this erratum does not affect the original data and conclusions. The authors apologize for any inconvenience that the errors may have caused.


Huang  The authors regret that funding support from grant UG3CA244697 was mistakenly included in the Acknowledgements section. The correct Acknowledgements section is given below: The research reported here was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number R21CA251052 and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R21GM138947. OE is supported by UL1TR002384, R01CA194547, P01CA214274 grants from the National Institutes of Health and LLS SCOR grants 180078-02, 7021-20, 180078-01. This work was performed in part at the Cornell NanoScale Facility, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant NNCI-2025233). The authors thank Dr. Ye Fang (Corning Inc.) for insightful discussions on the experimental design using PAR peptides. The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In addition to **1**, the affiliation(s) should be **1,2**. The newly added affiliation 2 should be: “Institute for Public Health, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany”.In the published publication , there wThe authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


Error in FigureFigure 5 as published. The images shown for the control group in 24 h are incorrect; the images for the control group in 48 h were inadvertently inserted because the two images are similar. The corrected Figure 5 appears below. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication , there w


Retraction Note: Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health (2023) 17:710.1186/s13034-022-00550-2The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article because the authors have informed them that, after publication, they became aware that there were errors in some portions of the software database used for the analysis of statistical data. These errors have altered the major conclusions, including significant results presented in the text and tables. The authors have been invited to submit a new manuscript for peer review. All authors agree with this retraction.


Retraction note: Nanoscale Research Letter (2021) 17:2110.1186/s11671-021-03640-wThe Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding lack of scale for tumours in Fig. 6A and poor quality of Western blots. Furthermore, ECC-1 cell line has been reported as contaminated by Ishikawa. The authors did not respond to requests to supply raw data or the ethics permit. The Editors, therefore, have lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. The authors did not respond to any correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.


The Editorial Office has been made aware of potential issues surrounding the scientific validity of this paper, hence has issued an expression of concern to notify readers whilst the Editorial Office investigates. The authors contacted the Editorial Office regarding a duplication in Figure 3C between the A549 migration vector image and the invasion vector image. A corrected image, which also includes the replacement of the Figure 3C STEAP1 panels, has been provided and is under review by the Editorial Board, and communication remains in progress regarding the western blot data of the figures and the raw data provided by the authors.


In the original publication , there wThe number of the ‘15–19 years’ row in Table 3 was 31 instead of 30. The number and percentage for the ‘Not satisfied’ row in Table 4 were 0 instead of 1. The number of the ‘Satisfied’ row in Table 4 was 83 instead of 84. A ‘No answer’ row in Table 4 was added, with the number and percentage of 1. The number in the ‘Somewhat easy’ row in Table 5 was 28 instead of 29. The corrected The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


A rare case of tumor-to-tumor metastasis: metastatic lobular breast carcinoma to clear cell renal cell carcinoma” published on 12 June 2023. This expression of concern has been posted while Pathology and Oncology Research awaits further clarification from the authors. It will be updated accordingly after that time.Following publication, the authors contacted the Editorial Office stating that the findings reported in the article are no longer supported by the analyses. With this notice, Pathology and Oncology Research states its awareness of concerns regarding “


Open Biol.9, 180227 (Published online 24 July 2019). (https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsob.180227)Following an investigation, we have found duplicates in the figures presented (notably fig. 2. (f) ‘A transwell migration assay was conducted to analyse the migratory capacity of A549 and H1299 cells transfected with the miR-4262 mimics or inhibitor at 18 h.’). This paper has been identified among of a set of papers that present significant text and data duplication and therefore the data reported in this article are unreliable. The authors have not been able to supply the raw data as requested, thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors have not responded to correspondence about this retraction.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.200165.The image integrity standards and policies for the journal can be found here: Jonathon Pines FRSOpen Biology.Editor-in-Chief,


The journal retracts the 17 June 2021 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the validity of the data in the article. The authors failed to provide the raw data or a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies. Given the concerns, and the lack of raw data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


An independent expert has viewed the corrected data for This correction supersedes the information provided in the Expression of Concern related to this article.The authors regret additional errors in the manuscript.Mn,NMR and Mn,GPC should be ×10 kg mol−1.In Table 1 the units for On page 19451, in the left column, in paragraph 2, line 9 and in the right column, in paragraph 3, line 10 the text ‘(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA)’ should have been written as ‘2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA)’.The authors and the Royal Society of Chemistry apologise for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Similarly, researchers have resorted to virtual conferences and meetings (2). This shift has fueled technological advancements and made individuals more proficient in virtual environments (3).The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically transformed communication methods. Face-to-face interactions became extremely limited, forcing students to miss once-in-a-lifetime opportunities (2). These gatherings were useful because they eliminated geographical and administrative barriers (4). Moreover, many researchers currently prefer hybrid meetings to other platforms, and they are expected to become the new norm after the pandemic (5). Researchers may prefer to attend meetings virtually rather than in person, because virtual attendance is more convenient and efficient than traveling to a conference venue (4). Although hybrid meetings have numerous benefits, face-to-face meetings have two distinct advantages.As health restrictions are gradually relaxed, hybrid meetings that combine in-person and virtual attendance are becoming increasingly common First, in-person communication is easier and more casually initiated as people are in close proximity. Face-to-face communication allows for an unplanned conversation with someone you did not intend to speak with and discussion of topic you had never considered before. Therefore, informal conversations that occur unintentionally, such as those that occur during meals or social gatherings, can occasionally lead to new ideas and networking opportunities. A conversation with a coworker from another laboratory who is seated next to you could spark new ideas and cross-laboratory collaborations. However, during online conversations, numerous impediments to casual “chatting” exist. Thus, while online meetings are convenient and efficient, in-person interactions are required to spark creativity and establish new relationships.Second, physical encounters involving multiple senses provide people with new perspectives. For example, traveling to a new location for attending an academic conference or studying at another institution, can teach you about local culture and social structures. Understanding and recognizing cultural differences will broaden one’s horizons as a person and researcher. Grasping the social context of science allows researchers to focus on how their work benefits the society. Thus, online meetings can offer fresh perspectives; however, the information we receive is limited to visual and auditory cues. Furthermore, attending meetings in unfamiliar locations may lead us to step outside our comfort zones.To summarize, hybrid meetings offer flexibility and ease of communication; however, it is important to strike a balance between the convenience of virtual attendance and the benefits of face-to-face interaction. Hence, in-person meetings should not be neglected in pursuit of convenience and simplicity with hybrid meetings.NoneThe authors are grateful to their colleagues, specifically those in clinical residency training, for their helpful discussions. The authors are also thankful to Paperpal  and ChatGPT  for providing primary language editing.Both authors conceptualized the manuscript. KT wrote the original draft and SS critically edited it. Both authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.Not applicable.


Sci., 2017, 8, 7457–7463, https://doi.org/10.1039/C7SC03351F.Correction for ‘Self-quenched ferrocenyl diketopyrrolopyrrole organic nanoparticles with amplifying photothermal effect for cancer therapy’ by Pingping Liang  It has come to our attention that some errors have been found in Fig. S11. The H&E staining images of the Heart, Liver, and Lung  and Lung  in Fig. S11 of the published work were misused when editing the photos. The mistake was found by the authors after the paper was published online. The correct Fig. S11 is given below. The results and conclusions of this paper are not affected by this correction.Fig. S11 Photographs of H&E stained major organs including heart, liver, spleen, lung and kidney obtained from four groups after 18 days of treatment. The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36363-2, published online 05 June 2023Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.After publication, it was brought to the Editors’ attention that the methods used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and cut-off values presented in Table 5 are not described in sufficient detail to allow reproduction of the analyses. The Editors contacted the Authors to request clarifications and the raw data underlying the study. The Authors were not able to provide a clear and valid description of the methodology. They did provide some of the data; however, these were not the original raw data and the Editors were not able to confirm their veracity.The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented in this Article.Khalid M. Mohany disagrees with the retraction. Mona A. H. El-Baz and Ahmed F. Amin did not respond to the correspondence about this retraction.


In “The Efficacy, Safety, and Efficiency of the Off-Label Use of Bevacizumab in Patients Diagnosed With Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”  the authors noted a missing Acknowledgments section. The Acknowledgments section has now been added to the published paper as follows:H&TRC authors gratefully acknowledge the FCT/MCTES national support through the UIDB/05608/2020 and UIDP/05608/2020.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on July 4, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


This article has been corrected: The authors found that in Figure 6J the wrong images were used to illustrate migration of UM-UC-3 cells treated with si-circRGNEF+inhibitor or si-circRGNEF+KIF2C. The same error occurred in Figure 7I, where migration images of UM-UC-3 cells treated with negative control (NC) or T24 cells treated with mimic+KIF2C were incorrect. The authors corrected these errors with the images from the original sets of experiments, the same images used for the statistical analysis. The authors also found that the bar graph in Figure 7M, which should have represented statistical analysis data for UM-UC-3 cell invasion, was mistakenly replaced with duplicate UM-UC-3 migration data. The authors replaced the Figure 7M bar graph with the correct graph using the original data. These corrections do not change the content of the publication and do not affect the conclusions drawn from this research.Figures 6 and 7 are presented below.Corrected


In the original publication , the figThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The Publisher retracts the 14 August 2020 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the ownership and authorization of some of the data used in the study. Specifically, during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies, the authors failed to provide authorization for the use of the nitrogen adsorption isotherm test data. The unauthorized data use was confirmed by an investigation led by the Ethics Committee of the CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigatcciones Cientíicas). This is a breach of Frontiers’ guidelines and those of the Committee on Publication Ethics. As such, this article is being retracted.The authors do not agree to correspondence regarding this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Chemistry and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


The corrected supplementary material can be found on the following pages. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Following publication, the publisher uncovered evidence that a false identity was used in the peer-review process. The assignment of the false identity was confirmed by an investigation conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.Because the peer-review had been compromised, the investigation included a post-publication review of the article, which concluded that the article should have been rejected because it does not meet the standards for publication in Frontiers in Psychology.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Psychology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors do not agree to this retraction.


Cancer Cell International (2020) 20:28710.1186/s12935-020-01387-5The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding Fig. 2d. This figure appears to overlap with Fig. 4f in an article by different authors that was simultaneously under consideration with another journal . The EdiThe authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


After having consulted the authors about these points, it was confirmed that there were certain aspects of the review that were in need of correction / clarification.This corrigendum therefore aims to rectify the problem of the incorrect factual information presented in this review, as follows (changes to the published text are highlighted in bold):3. Biochemistry of hemoglobin A1c” on p. 2, line 7, the sentence starting here should have read as: “In the presence of glucose, glycan interacts with the amino group of Hb.”;i) In the section “2 group of the amino acid to form a Schiff base or aldimine,...”;ii) In the same section, on line 10, the sentence starting here should have read as: “The first step is the reaction of the aldehyde group of glucose with the NHyielding HbA1c.”iii) In the same section, the sentence concluding on line 16 should have read as, “... which contains a more stable and irreversible ketoamine bond, 4. HbA1c detection methods”, towards the bottom of the left-hand column of p. 2, the first sentence in the second paragraph should have simply read: “The boronate affinity chromatography (BAC) method is often used as a reference method in several studies.” ;iv) In the section “Drugs” in the right-hand column of p. 6), the authors wish to clarify that they were referring throughout to “non-enzymatic glycosylation , as was specifically stated in line 8 of this subsection.v) finally, where the term “glycosylation” was featured in this review (especially in the subsection “Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine for granting them the opportunity to publish this; furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any misunderstandings or confusion caused.The authors thank the interested reader for bringing this matter to their attention. All the authors agree with the publication of this corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of


In addition, certain of the data shown in the invasion assay experiments in Fig. 5C subsequently appeared in a more expansive form in the following paper, published by different authors at different research institutes: Wang H, Niu X, Jiang H, Mao F, Zhong B, Jiang X and Fu G: Long non-coding RNA DLX6-AS1 facilitates bladder cancer progression through modulating miR-195-5p/VEGFA signaling pathway. Aging 12: 16021–16034, 2020.Oncology Letters has decided that the paper should be retracted on account of an overall lack of confidence in the presented data. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Although the authors did respond to our query and attempted to explain the issues associated with this problematic figure, the Editor of


Correction to: Statistical Methods & Applications 10.1007/s10260-023-00690-5In the published version of the paper, two figures have been uploaded from a previous version. In view of that, the captions of Figs. We report below Figs.


In the original publication the authors have discovered an error in the software algorithm used to calculate radial contribution to stroke volume (SV). The error consists of a failure to account for the slice gap when calculating septal movement and contribution to SV.Authors correcting note:Upon reviewing the algorithm used to calculate septal contribution to stroke volume an error was observed. The error consists of a failure to account for the slice gap when calculating septal movement and contribution to SV, affecting images with a slice gap of > 0 mm. After adjusting the algorithm the following changes are to be made in the manuscript:− 2 ml [− 3.8–2.1].Septal contribution to SV is -3.5 ml (-5.2–4.1) instead of Figure 5 has been revised. See revised Fig. 5 attached.Figure 6 has been revised. See revised Fig. 6 attached.In conclusion; after correctly taking slice gap into account, there is a minor change in the results as described above. However, the main conclusion of the study holds true.


Bioscience Reports at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board following receipt of a notification from a reader, alerting the Editorial Board to cell-count distribution graphs that do not conform to the expected results for an experiment of this type.This article is being retracted from The authors were asked to provide the raw data in the form of the output from the flow cytometer, including the specific datapoints used to build the graphs. The authors provided the Editorial Board with PDF scatterplots but were unable to provide the specific data points, stating that this data was not saved. Given the lack of raw data, and that doubt remains over the validity of the graphs, the Editorial Board stands by the decision to retract. The authors agree to the retraction.


They also wish to apologize to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused.After having re-examined their original data, the authors have realized that the data featured in


Retraction Note:J Exp Clin Cancer Res37, 17 (2018)10.1186/s13046-018-0691-9The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding highly similar images in the figures. Specifically:Figure 1b shRNA CTR MHCC-97L image appears highly similar to Fig. 6g shRNA CTR miR-185 inhibitor.Figure 3a MHCC-97L ITGB5 blot image appears highly similar to Fig. 3n WB: anti-Ub .Figure 4h shRNA ITGB5 CTR image appears highly similar to Fig. 6g shRNA ITGB5 miR-185 inhibitor.Figure 4j shRNA ITGB5 and Fig. 6i shRNA CRT miR-185 inhibitor images appear to overlap.Figure 6j shRNA β-catenin CTR and shRNA ITGB5 miR-185 inhibitor images appear to overlap.The authors have stated that the images were misused, and provided the raw data for validation. However, due to the number and severity of concerns, the Editor-in-Chief no longer has confidence in the presented data.Zhikun Lin has stated on behalf of all co-authors they do not agree to this retraction.


Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the validity of the data in the article. Following provision of raw data by the authors, the Chief Editor concluded that the article’s conclusions and assertions were not sufficiently supported by the findings from the material provided; therefore, the article has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editor of Frontiers in Cellular and Developmental Biology and the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.


PLoS Genet 11: e1005399, 2015.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that lanes 1–3 of the EMSA results shown in Fig. 6 on p. 1278 were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in a different form in the following publication by different authors at different research institutes: Qiu K, Li Z, Chen J, Wu S, Zhu X, Gao S, Gao J, Ren G and Zhou X: EIN3 and ORE1 accelerate degreening during ethylene-mediated leaf senescence by directly activating chlorophyll catabolic genes in Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Nature Communications 10.1038/ncomms12884, published online 29 September 2016Correction to: 31P NMR chemical shifts of compounds 3 and 5, due to an instrument referencing error that has been recognized later. For compound 3, an incorrect 31P NMR chemical shifts value of 150.8 ppm was reported in the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the Synthesis subsection of the Results, in the first entry of the second line of Table 1, and in the 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph of the Discussion; an incorrect value of 150.79 ppm was reported in the 12th sentence of the section ‘Preparation of [Th(TrenTIPS)(PH)][Na(12C4)2] (3)’ of the Methods . The correct version replaces 150.8 and 150.79 with 198.8. For compound 5, an incorrect 31P NMR chemical shifts value of 24.5 ppm was reported in the 4th sentence of the 4th paragraph of the Synthesis subsection of the Results, in the first entry of the third line of Table 1, and in the 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph of the Discussion; an incorrect value of 24.46 ppm was reported in the 14th sentence of the section ‘Preparation of [{Th(TrenTIPS)}2(μ-PH)] (5).’ of the Methods. The correct version replaces 24.5 and 24.46 with 145.7. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.The original version of this Article contained errors in the


This is a correction of Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2023;33(2):020704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2023.020704 Since the publication of the article, the authors have noticed that their first names and surnames in the by-line were listed in reverse. The correct by-line is presented above. We apologize to the authors for any inconvenience caused to the readers.


This article has been corrected at the request of the authors to edit data that had been mislabeled and transposed in the initial published version:Table 1: ‘RTA’ has been replaced with ‘Fall from height’ and ‘Fall from height’ has been replaced with ‘RTA’.Table 2: ‘Anterior’ has been replaced with ‘Posterior’ and ‘Posterior’ has been replaced with ‘Anterior’.Table 2 legend: ‘60.4% and 27.1%’ has been replaced with ‘27.1% and 60.4%’.Table 4 title: ‘75’ has been changed to ‘52’.Table 4: LUCL repair has been changed from ‘10 (19.2)’ to ‘22 (44.0)’.The authors deeply regret that these errors were not identified and addressed prior to publication.


Nanoscale paper due to anerror in Fig. 3c and 5b.The authors hereby wholly retract this In Fig. 3c the infrared thermal images of the mice in the control panel and theRT/PTT panel are identical.In Fig. 5b, kidney histology of 4 four treatment groups were compared. The imageused for the kidney RT/PTT panel was wrongly used and contains overlap with the kidneycontrol panel.We feel that these errors undermine the integrity of this study. We regret anyconfusion and apologize to the scientific community.Haifa Shen and Mauro Ferrari were contacted about this retraction but did notrespond to any correspondence. Signed: Min Zhou, Jun Zhao, Mei Tian, Shaoli Song, RuiZhang, Sanjay Gupta, Dongfeng Tan, Chun LiDate: 25/7/2023NanoscaleRetraction endorsed by Heather Montgomery, Managing Editor,


This article has been corrected at the request of the authors to change the title from “Pre-transarterial Radioembolization of Tumoral Arteriovenous Fistula Associated With Recanalized Umbilical Vein Shunt in a Case of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Hepatic Vein and Inferior Vena Cava Invasion” to “Pretreatment Embolization of Tumoral Arteriovenous Fistula Associated With Recanalized Umbilical Vein Shunt in a Case of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Hepatic Vein and Inferior Vena Cava Invasion”.The authors and journal deeply regret that this error was not identified and addressed prior to publication.


The journal retracts the 11 August 2020 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the validity of the data in the article. The authors failed to provide the raw data or a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies. Given the concerns, and the lack of raw data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers of Physiology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


This article has been corrected at the request of the authors due to an error that appears in Table 2 as well as the Materials and Methods: Study Design section. In both instances, the threshold for defining compliance is incorrectly specified as 80% instead of the correct threshold of 60%. It is mentioned as 60-80% or 60% in both the Results and Conclusion sections, but should have been accurately depicted in Table 2 and the Materials and Methods section as well. The authors and the journal regret that this error was not identified and addressed prior to publication.


Retraction Note: BMC Public Health 23, 638 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15544-8The Editor has retracted this article because the authors had not obtained appropriate ethical approval before the recruitment of participants for this study began. None of the authors agree to this retraction.


New sequencing data of the iPSC line clearly indicates heterozygosity of the APP patient cells. The authors would like to apologize for not having identified this error earlier and any inconvenience caused. The error does not invalidate any of the data and conclusions previously reported. The text that requires emendation in light of this sequencing error is provided below.


After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the western blotting data shown in Fig. 5A and the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes, several of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, prior to its submission to


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


British Journal of Nutrition, the graphical abstract was erroneously omitted at the time of publication. The corresponding graphical abstract has now been added to the following articles and is present in their HTML version.In the below articles published in the Cambridge University Press apologises for this error.


The Editorial Office identified that the figures and data provided in the articles original submission were correct, and that this error was introduced by the authors during the first revision. The authors state that this occurred due to copying and pasting the graphs when checking the alignment of the graphs in The requested correction and related raw data have been assessed and agreed by the Editorial Board. The authors declare that these corrections do not change the results or conclusions of their paper.


There was an error in the original publication. We found that due to previous negligence, some important content was missing in the previous manuscript . It is aAppendix B:A correction has been made to Lemma A1.: For any given continuous random variables and , if there is a bijection (one to one) mapping and another random variable such that for any there is a , and vice versa, where denotes the domain of the variable , then the mutual information between and is equal to the information between and , that is:Proof. Because there is a one to one mapping And Equation (A17) can also be proved because of the commutativeness of the mutual information. □Due to the insertion of Lemma A1, the number of following Lemma are changed.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper :In the original publication, there was a mistake in The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


This article has been retracted at the request of the authors. All authors consent to this retraction and together they have provided the following explanation:The members of the SAVE Program who were responsible for collecting and distributing the data used for Table 1 were not properly accredited. This also includes those involved in the execution of the program and the calling project. It is imperative that we maintain our integrity as members of the medical community, and allowing the article to remain accessible without properly crediting those essential to its creation would be an utmost violation of our values.


Open nephroureterectomy compared to laparoscopic in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis By Liu G, Yao Z, Chen G, Li Y and Liang B. (2021) Front. Surg. 8:729686. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.729686A Retraction of the Systematic Review Article The journal and Chief Editors retract the 13 August 2021 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding abnormal similarities with the contents of other articles published by unrelated research groups. A subsequent investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies, raised strong concerns over the authorship of the articles, resulting in a loss of confidence in the findings presented in the article.The authors have not responded to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Surgery and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that various panels showing data from flow cytometric experiments in Figs. 2E, 5E and 6E, and the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 2D and 6D, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere when it was submitted to


BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies (2022) 22:28810.1186/s12906-022-03765-0The Editor has retracted this article. The T2D + CD100 and T2d + CD150 panels in Fig. 2a appear to partially overlap. The authors have provided the original images upon request; however, these images also appear to overlap.Additionally, the NC + veh, T2D + veh and T2D + DON images and data in Fig. 2 appear highly similar to the same groups in Fig. 2 of the authors’ earlier article .The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the reliability of the data and conclusions reported in this article.Adel A. Gomaa, Hanan S. M. Farghaly and Mariam A. Nicola do not agree to this retraction. Rania M. Makboul and Abeer M. Hussien have not responded to any correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


After publication, we noticed a minor error in


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Technologies to Support Assessment of Movement During Video Consultations: Exploratory Study.”The paper  is well The title is chosen correctly, and the abstract provides sufficient information to give a clear idea of what to expect from the paper.The results are well highlighted, and the conclusions are adequate.The technical depth of the paper meets the requirements for a scientific article published in a quality journal.


Retraction Note: Alz Res Ther 13, 37 (2021)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00769-9Fig. 3b 5xFAD + Veh CAI 12-month-old group image appears highly similar to an image representing the same group in [In Fig. 3B, 5xFAD + SCLP Cortex and Entorhinal cortex images appear to originate from the same sample.In Fig. 3E, the beta-tubulin blots presented for the cortex 6- and 12-month-old groups appear highly similar; the beta-tubulin blot image for hippocampus in the 6-month-old group appears highly similar to that representing beta-tubulin in the 12-month-old group in Figs. 5F and 7A.The updated Fig. 4G 5xFAD Primary 6-month-old group image appears to overlap with Fig. 4I 5xFAD Secondary 12-month-old group.The top beta-tubulin blot in Fig. 6F appears highly similar to the beta-tubulin (hippocampus) blot in Fig. 7A.The blots in Fig. S2I appear highly similar to those in Fig. 3D of [Fig. S5A appears highly similar to the Merged 5xFAR + SLCP (2d) image in Fig. 1B of [The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article at the authors' request. After publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of cases of image overlap within the Figures, which the authors addressed by a Correction . HoweverDespite internal data validation, the authors no longer have sufficient confidence in the findings of this study.All authors agree to this retraction.


Fig. S3. PTH (1-34) attunes the KOA progression by restoring cartilage thickness and retaining GAG content from (a) Alican Blue staining and (b) Masson staining.” in Appendix A. Supplementary data in our published paper. We found an error of DMM OPG-/- mice at the 8th week and the 12th week in Alican Blue staining. We now have corrected the Fig. S3 and used the right histology evaluation (DMM OPG-/- mice at the 12th week). Of note that, the correction of the Fig. S3 would have no influence on the conclusion of the current study.The authors regret “an error occurred in the The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.Fig. 1) for Appendix A. Supplementary data Fig. S3. An error occurred in the DMM OPG-/-mice at the 8th week and the 12th week.Here is the original published one  for Appendix A. Supplementary data Fig. S3. We used the corrected histology evaluation (DMM OPG-/-mice at the 12thweek) in Alican Blue staining.Here is the amended figure (


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 4, 315 (2015)10.1186/s40064-015-1059-7The Editor has retracted this article. Concerns were raised about a number of the images presented in Figs. 2, 10 and 11. The authors provided raw data; however, as there were inconsistencies in these data the Editor no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions presented. In addition, the authors have not provided evidence of appropriate ethical oversight of this study. Vikas Kumar disagrees with this retraction. Danish Ahmed, Amita Verma, Girja Shankar Shukla and Manju Sharma have not responded to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the colony formation assay data shown in Fig. 3A on p. 3399 were strikingly similar to data that were already under consideration for publication in another article written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-022-08134-y, published online 12 March 2022Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this article.After publication concerns were raised that the XRD spectra in Figure 13 are identical. The authors are unable to provide the original data for examination. In addition, an investigation by the Editors has shown inappropriate changes in authorship during the review process. The Editors no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented.Jawad Ahmad, Amjad Ali Pasha and Kashif Irshad disagree with this retraction. Amjad Ali Pasha has stated on behalf of Mostefa Bourchak that they disagree with this retraction. The Editors were not able to obtain a current email address for Rebeca Martinez-Garcia and Jesús de-Prado-Gil.


Correction to: International Microbiologyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10123-023-00332-6The authors regret that an unnecessary sentence* was embedded at the beginning of the “Results and discussion” section.* “We refer to 3 different parameters:(i) microbial ecology of the environment.(ii) nutritional habits.(iii) social habits”The original article has been corrected. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.


In the original publication by Khan et al., 2022 , there wThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the data shown for the flow cytometric assay experiments in Figs. 2E and 5E were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


To the Editor:Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, Ashkenazi and Olsha examined the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution analyzing misconduct in their scholarly publications.3In their article “Authorship Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in the Research Institution” in the July 2023 issue of For a time, I collected two types of articles displaying exaggerated authorship: (1) papers in which the number of authors exceeded the number of patients studied, usually in a small clinical trial; and (2) reports of single cases in which the authorship consisted of ten or more authors.4The ingenuity and creativity of justifying authorship in the cases in which the journal required such an explanation impressed me. In recognition of those skills, I have offered the Marshall A. Lichtman Prize to the senior author.Initially Kovacs, and then I, have provided, independently, a solution to the disturbing trend of inappropriate “gift” or “honorary” authorship.The law of conservation of mass requires the mass of the products to be equal to the mass of the reactants. Under our suggested new system, the number of citations would not exceed the number of papers. It is inappropriate, indeed misleading, to generate multiple papers from one paper, as the current citation process does; and, it fosters the practice of adding undeserving authors. There is no cost to the appropriate authors to add any number of undeserving authors in an act of collegiality or a group effort to inflate citations,3Kovacs has provided the most in-depth discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal to have the citation credit of all authors on a paper sum to one paper.


The graphs had been switched with those in Figure S1. The corrected “Figure 4. Screening for protein–protein interactions between FMDV 3Dpol and the sixteen selected IFN pathway proteins from the cattle, sheep, goat and swine libraries.” version appears below. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication , there w


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 17, 326 (2017)10.1186/s12906-017-1830-0The Editor has retracted this article. After publication it was noted that in Fig. 6 there is overlap in Fig. 6A between the CA1 Model and XYS images and also in Fig. 6B between the CA1 Control and XYS images. The authors were asked to provide the raw data for the figure, however, the data provided by the authors could not be matched to the data used in the figure. The Editor has therefore lost confidence in the integrity of the data presented in this article.None of the authors agree to this retraction.


Retraction Note: Italian Journal of Pediatrics (2022) 48:9410.1186/s13052-022-01247-0The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the request of the corresponding author Dong Li because the authors have become aware of a number of errors in the data presented. Dong Li agrees with this retraction. Jin-Yue Huang, Wen-Xuan Fan, Jing Meng and Chun-Quan Cai have not responded to correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction.


Rajeswari et al., RSC Adv., 2014, 4, 61525–61536. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA12207K.Retraction of ‘Investigation of anticorrosive, antibacterial and  RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.The Royal Society of Chemistry, with the agreement of the authors, hereby wholly retracts this The HRSEM image in Fig. 4c represents a scaled version of part of the image presented in Fig. 4e. However, both images are presented with the same scale bar and represent different samples.Repeating fragments can be observed in the images in Fig. 6a–f, indicating that the images have been manipulated.The optical images in Fig. 8a–c have been duplicated in other publications. The panel in Fig. 8a has been duplicated as Fig. 9a in ref. The authors informed the editor that the characterization of the original samples was outsourced, and they do not have the original raw data for the published results.Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the findings presented in this paper are not reliable.Signed: D. Rajeswari, D. Gopi, S. Ramya and L. KavithaDate: 16th March 2023RSC AdvancesRetraction endorsed by Laura Fisher, Executive Editor,


Considering the nature of the concerns in this case, the article contents were removed from the journal’s website at the time of retraction.This issue has not been resolved following discussions between PLOS and the authors. Therefore, the The authors did not reply or could not be reached to comment on the retraction decision.®-8 scale (used in this study) was originally published in 2008 [® trademark was also registered by Donald E. Morisky on January 29, 2019 (Reg. No. 5837374). Any reference to “MMAS” in this article [Note: the MMAS


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer 20, 681 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07167-8The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding highly similar images in Fig. 2a , which the authors addressed by a Correction. However, further concerns have been identified by the publisher, specifically:Fig. 3c and 3i 0h and 24h control images appear to be the same.Fig. 3c 50 and 100 uM group 0h images appear highly similar The authors have also found three other misused images in Fig. 3c (NSC23766 50 µM 0h) and i (ML141 20 µM and 40 µM 0h), and incorrect errors bars in the data presented in Fig. 4a.The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.All authors agree to this retraction.


Retraction Note: BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies (2020) 20:19410.1186/s12906-020-02980-xThe Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of figures in this article. Specifically:In Fig. 2B, the H1975 and A549 cell images in the 100 mg/l treatment group appear to originate from the same sample with different magnification.In Fig. 5A, the A549 PCNA western blot image appears highly similar to the NLRP3 blot in Fig. 7C.In Fig. S2B, the H1975 + Beclin-1-Si-3 DMSO image appears to originate from the same sample as Fig. 2B A549 50 mg/l treatment group with different magnification.The authors have provided the raw data to address these concerns. However, the raw data files contained further image overlap. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.All authors agree to this retraction.