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 some of the data in the above article had already been published, or were under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


The authors regret to make some minor changes in the published articles particularly in the Tables. Author would like to correct abbreviations and annotations The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Retraction: Biol Res (2016) 49:24https://doi.org/10.1186/s40659-016-0084-5The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article because it contains substantial overlap with a previously published work by the same authors . This arAuthor Md. Amirul Alam disagrees with this retraction. The other authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Cancer Medicine. 2017; 819–833: The above article, published online on March 23, 2017 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.1030) has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr. Stephen Tait, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Retraction: ‘Effects of miR‐145‐5p through NRAS on the cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and invasion in melanoma by inhibiting MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways,’ Sha Liu, Guozhen Gao, Dexiong Yan, Xiangjun Chen, Xingwei Yao, Shuzhong Guo, Guirong Li, Yu Zhao, The retraction has been agreed following allegations raised by a third party. Multiple flaws and inconsistencies between the results presented and the experimental methods described were found, as well as instances of image manipulation across several figures. As a result, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid.


There was an error of omission in the original publication , in the A correction has been made to the Conflicts of Interest section. The revised text is: “The author N.N. declares no conflict of interest as an independent researcher. R.M. and S.M.-v.S. are the inventors of the DASD device, full-time staff members of the University of the Western Cape and joint patent holders with the University of the Western Cape. The DASD device was licensed for manufacture and sale to Amplitude Consulting PTY (LTD) between October 2021 and December 2022. R.M. and S.M.-v.S. are shareholders of Amplitude Consulting PTY (LTD).”The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Kazem Baesi), psPAX2  and pMD2.G  vectors complexed with 20 μl of TurboFect Transfection Reagent in 6-well plate  HIV-1 stocks were generated by transfection of HEK-293T cells (7 × 10Also, the authors did not include a sentence in their acknowledgements section that they wished to include. "The authors also would like to thank Dr. Kazem Baesi of the Pasture Institute of Iran for the gift of the VSV-G-pseudotyped HIV-1 vectors used in this project


Caplan, Keri Cavanaugh, Bertrand Perroud, Tadeusz Wroblewski, Richard W. Michelmore, Blake C. Meyers, The Role of TIR-NBS and TIR-X Proteins in Plant Basal Defense Responses, Plant Physiology, Volume 162, Issue 3, July 2013, Pages 1459–1472, The authors were made aware of the image duplicated in This correction does not otherwise affect the results nor alter any of the original conclusions. We apologize for any inconvenience to the readers.


The authors would like to draw the reader’s attention to a YouTube video2


Ibrahim, Nosiba Ibrahim Mohammed Ahmed Hamza Mohammed, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed, Gaffar Alemam A. Manhal, Mohammed Mahmmoud Fadelallah Eljack, Muhammad Junaid Tahir, HSR21068, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hsr2.1068} has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Charles Young and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed given the journal has received evidence confirming that the peer review process of this paper was manipulated. As a result, the conclusions reported in the article are not considered reliable.The above article, published online on {First published: 19 January 2023} in Wiley Online Library { Ibrahim, Nosiba Ibrahim Mohammed Ahmed Hamza Mohammed, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed, Gaffar Alemam A. Manhal, Mohammed Mahmmoud Fadelallah Eljack, Muhammad Junaid Tahir, HSR21068, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hsr2.1068} has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Charles Young and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed given the journal has received evidence confirming that the peer review process of this paper was manipulated. As a result, the conclusions reported in the article are not considered reliable.The above article, published online on {First published: 19 January 2023} in Wiley Online Library {


Addition of an AuthorPolina M. Tyubaeva was not included as an author in the original publication [lication . The corAuthor ContributionsConceptualization, S.G.K. and I.A.V.; investigation, S.G.K., P.M.T. and I.A.V.; resources, I.A.V. and P.M.T.; data curation, A.A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G.K. and A.A.P.; writing—review and editing, A.A.P. and I.A.V.; visualization, S.G.K.; supervision, S.G.K.; project administration, I.A.V.; funding acquisition, I.A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


The last two authors, Krisztián Szigeti and Domokos Máthé, should be noted as contributing equally to this work.


The journal retracts the 2021 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the contributions of the authors of the article. Our investigation, conducted in accordance with Frontiers policies, confirmed a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics; the article is therefore retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Public Health and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 14, 243 (2014)10.1186/1472-6882-14-243The Editor has retracted this article. Concerns were raised about a number of the images presented in Figure 2, Figure 10 and Figure 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 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


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.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the Transwell invasion assay data shown in Fig. 5E were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes, several of which have already been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Page 3, Fig. 1: Due to incorrect labeling of electrophoresis lanes, panel A does not match its description in the figure legend. Panel A should appear as shown in this erratum. This error does not affect the original data, data interpretation, or conclusions of the article.Volume 11, no. 1, e03155-22, 2023,


The retraction has been agreed following an investigation into concerns raised by a third party, which revealed inappropriate duplications of image panels within the article (multiple panels of fig. 2G and 3C), as well as inappropriate duplications of panels in figs 1D, 2G, and 3C with another study [1], which shares two of the authors. Compelling raw data was not available. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this manuscript substantially compromised.The above article, published online on 17 July 2020 in Wiley Online Library (10.3389/fcell.2021.568738. Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 09 February 2021.[1] Exosomal miR‐128‐3p Promotes Epithelial‐to‐Mesenchymal Transition in Colorectal Cancer Cells by Targeting FOXO4 via TGF‐β/SMAD and JAK/STAT3 Signaling DOI:Referencehttps://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.127651 Zhang X, Bai J, Yin H, Long L, Zheng Z, Wang Q, et al. Exosomal miR‐1255b‐5p targets human telomerase reverse transcriptase in colorectal cancer cells to suppress epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition. Mol Oncol. 2020;14:2589–608.  The retraction has been agreed following an investigation into concerns raised by a third party, which revealed inappropriate duplications of image panels within the article (multiple panels of fig. 2G and 3C), as well as inappropriate duplications of panels in figs 1D, 2G, and 3C with another study [1], which shares two of the authors. Compelling raw data was not available. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this manuscript substantially compromised.The above article, published online on 17 July 2020 in Wiley Online Library (10.3389/fcell.2021.568738. Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 09 February 2021.[1] Exosomal miR‐128‐3p Promotes Epithelial‐to‐Mesenchymal Transition in Colorectal Cancer Cells by Targeting FOXO4 via TGF‐β/SMAD and JAK/STAT3 Signaling DOI:Referencehttps://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.127651 Zhang X, Bai J, Yin H, Long L, Zheng Z, Wang Q, et al. Exosomal miR‐1255b‐5p targets human telomerase reverse transcriptase in colorectal cancer cells to suppress epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition. Mol Oncol. 2020;14:2589–608.


A Retraction of the Systematic Review ArticleOpen resection compared to mini-invasive in colorectal cancer and liver metastases: a meta-analysis By Gong J, Gao F, Xie Q, Zhao X and Lei Z. (2021) Front. Surg. 8:726217. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.726217The journal and Chief Editors retract the 30 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.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper :In the last paragraph of Section 9, Immune Mechanisms and Induction of Ant-Ganglioside Antibodies, the author mistakenly wrote: “As an example, Hirano and colleagues [84] reported on a family with Cj infection, in which IgG but IgM anti-ganglioside antibodies were associated with GBS.” The correct version should be as follows: “As an example, Rees and colleagues [39] reported that some patients with uncomplicated Cj infection without neuropathy developed IgM but not IgG anti-ganglioside antibodies.”The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


This article has been retracted: Due to defects in the experimental results and methods, the conclusions of this paper are invalid. The authors were unable to verify or replicate the experiments. As a result, with the agreement of all authors, Oncotarget has decided to retract this paper.109238-109246. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.22652Original article: Oncotarget. 2017; 8:109238–109246.


When this article was originally published in Psychological Medicine it included the sentence ‘'Women's stomachs are on average less acidic compared to men's and this increases the absorption of antipsychotic drugs’. Based on the available literature on this topic, it is difficult to determine whether, and to what extent, sex differences in stomach acidity influence the absorption of antipsychotics. Due to this, this sentence has been removed and Figure 1 has been updated to reflect this change.The authors apologise for this error.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe Fig 1A OPM-2 actin panel and the Fig 1C PT#4 actin panel appear similar when horizontally stretched despite representing different experimental conditions.Lanes 2–4 of the Fig 1A ANBL6/U266/8226 actin panel appear similar to the Fig 3A shRNA MNK2 GAPDH panel.The Fig 1C PT#2 P-MNK and T-MNK panels of [In Fig 1D, the MNK1 panel in the MNK2 immunoprecipitation blot has no detectable signal nor does the panel present a positive control to confirm a successful blot.The authors did not provide the raw data underlying the published results for editorial review. In the absence of the raw data required to support the published results PLOS is unable to resolve the above issues.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the validity and reliability of these data, the CB and JG agreed with the retraction. PF did not agree with the retraction. YS, BH, YY, and AL either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Retraction note: Mol Cancer 18, 185 (2019)10.1186/s12943-019-1116-xThe Editor in Chief has retracted this article after concerns were raised about potential image overlap in Figs. 1 and 6. Therefore, the Editor has lost confidence in the data presented here. None of the authors has responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.Partial image overlap between Fig. 1A specifically the upper image for shCtrl with Fig. 1J specifically the upper image for LGR5+.Image overlap between Fig. 1H specifically cells at position 2 in 3rd lane for shCBX8-2 with Fig. 2G specifically cells at position 1 in 5th lane for vec + CPT-11.Image overlap between Fig. 6F specifically the last lane of WB for ß-actin with Fig. 5A of .Image overlap between Fig. 1I specifically the last lane for shCBX8-2 with Fig. 4H of [Image overlap between Fig. 1I specifically the last lane for shCBX8-2 with Fig. 8A of .Image overlap between Fig. 1I specifically the last lane for shCBX8-2 with Fig. 8A of .


Biol. Open (2017) 6, 489-495 (doi:10.1242/bio.024133).There are potential issues in Fig 4 in In Fig 4B, it appears there is background duplication in the NC and 80μM Tan IIA+ox-LDL panels, and also in the ox-LDL and 40μM Tan IIA+ox-LDL panels.We have made multiple attempts to contact all authors to request original data for the affected figures but have not received a response. Therefore, the journal is publishing this note to alert readers to our concerns.


This paper provides a reinterpretation of some of the most influential skeptical arguments, Agrippa’s trilemma, meta-regress arguments, and Cartesian external world skepticism. These skeptical arguments are reasonably regarded as unsound arguments about the extent of our knowledge. However, reinterpretations of these arguments tell us something significant about the preconditions and limits of persuasive argumentation. These results contribute to the ongoing debates about the nature and resolvability of deep disagreement. The variety of skeptical arguments shows that we must distinguish different types of deep disagreement. Moreover, the reinterpretation of skeptical arguments elucidates that deep disagreement cannot be resolved via argumentation. Typically, epistemologists identify two desiderata concerning skeptical arguments, explaining how the skeptical intuition arises and showing why the skeptical argument is unsound (or why it is sound). Most epistemologists do not regard skeptical arguments as convincing. In particular, they do not find regress arguments cogent, and consequently, they reject them as arguments about the limits of knowledge. In discussions of skeptical arguments, it is occasionally pointed out that we are not in a position to present a persuasive argument to the skeptic but that this does not imply that we cannot know.Argumentation might seem a rather neglected phenomenon in contemporary epistemology, despite the raising popularity of social epistemology, but this impression is not entirely correct, given the substantial recent literature on argumentation in epistemology.Agrippa’s trilemmaA meta-regress argumentThe argument for external world skepticism, including the claim that Moorean reasoning is epistemically defective because it cannot offer a persuasive argument to the skeptic.This list of skeptical arguments is, of course, not exhaustive. For example, there are other explanations on the market of why Moorean reasoning is epistemically defective.In this paper, I will investigate two argumentative phenomena—argumentation with a skeptic (instead of argumentation for or against skepticism) and deep disagreement. I will focus on the following three skeptical arguments:q requires justification via another proposition p which itself has to be justified and so on. (A2), in comparison, relies on the assumption that in order to know (or be justified to believe) that q on the basis of p, S needs to know (or be justified to believe) that p properly supports q. Note that there are not only structural similarities between (A1) and (A2). Carroll  can be transformed into an argument that is at least close to (A1). However, I do not see how (A1) could be formulated as a version of (A2). Furthermore, I think there is an intuitive difference between requiring an argument for every premise used and requiring an argument for the adequacy of every argument presented. People often require further information about the premises of an argument, but asking for a meta-argument seems intuitively a different issue.7Before proceeding, let me pause for a moment to say a few words about the structure of the skeptical arguments that will be analyzed. (A1) and (A2) are regress arguments, i.e. they rely on a regress clause which implies that one has to undergo infinitely many steps for achieving justification and/or knowledge, a requirement that cannot be fulfilled. (A1) is based on the idea that justification or knowledge of  Carroll  presentsMoreover, argument (A3) concerning Moorean reasoning and bootstrapping can also be interpreted as a regress problem. If S cannot come to know that a source is reliable via information delivered from the source itself, then S needs a second source for determining the reliability of the source and so on. Hence, an infinite regress threatens. However, this interpretation of (A3) ignores that there remains a puzzle about why bootstrapping and Moorean reasoning are or seem implausible, given that one rejects this kind of regress. Hence, all three arguments (A1)–(A3) are presumably interpretable as regress-arguments. Nevertheless, there are notable differences between these arguments, which are also crucial for revealing different types of deep disagreement. For these reasons, I will stick hereinafter to the useful distinction between (A1), (A2) and (A3).8p and B rejects that p or suspends judgment about p.p end up having the same doxastic attitude. One intuitive way of resolving disagreement is via persuasion. Hereinafter, I understand persuasion in the following sense:Definition: Persuasionp via action c iff A performs c and B believes that p because of c.10A persuades B that Persuasion is an instance of resolving disagreement given that one party who believes that p makes another party also believe that p. This is the instance of resolving disagreement on which I will focus in this paper. Moreover, disagreement can be resolved via various methods, e.g. via demonstration. One paradigmatic way of resolving disagreement, which is subject of this paper, is via argumentation.Let me start with some remarks about disagreement in general. Two parties disagree about a target proposition if they have different doxastic attitudes towards this proposition, i.e. if A believes that deep disagreement. In his seminal paper, Fogelin foundationalist justification(ii)circular justification(iii)infinite justificationThere are exactly three potential alternatives of justification for believing that p.None of these three alternatives can yield justification for believing that There is no knowledge without justification.Therefore, we do not have any knowledge.There is wide agreement in contemporary epistemology that the skeptical argument based on Agrippa’s trilemma is unsound since (2) is false because either (i), (ii), or (iii) can yield justification. Foundationalism accepts (i), coherentism (ii), and infinitism (iii) as a way of acquiring justification.16The first skeptical argument, discussed here, is Agrippa’s trilemma.Agrippa’s trilemma states that a subject is, under certain circumstances, forced to either reason ad infinitum, to stop at an arbitrary point, or to undergo circular reasoning. However, when would a subject face a trilemma of presenting new reasons ad infinitum, stopping at an arbitrary point, or reasoning circularly if not in cases of justification? The answer can be found in the context of argumentation, or so I will argue.17p simply by uttering that p, without providing any further evidence for p.Definition: Persuasion via Trustp iff A utters that p and B believes that p because of A’s utterance that p.20A persuades B via trust that Persuasion via trust does not require that B reflectively believes that A is reliable or trustworthy concerning p. It can also happen rather automatically, for example, if a child automatically believes her parents without entertaining any thought about their reliability or trustworthiness. Hence, persuasion via trust often only involves the absence of a negative belief that the speaker is unreliable or lacks trustworthiness. For the purpose of this paper, I am particularly interested in persuasion via argumentation in the following sense:Definition: Persuasion via Argumentationp iff A presents an argumentation for p and B believes that p because of this argumentation.21A persuades B via argumentation that Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.PCBc because of A’s argumentation consisting of premises p1…pn and conclusion c, only if B believes sufficiently many of premises p1…pn.B believes that I will call hearers who follow PCB unprejudiced, since they do not believe the conclusion of an argument for merely psychological reasons and without believing the premises.Before making this point, let me provide some terminological remarks on argumentation and persuasion. I understand argumentation as an interaction between a speaker, to whom I refer as A, and a hearer, to whom I refer as B. One central purpose of argumentative interaction is to convince or persuade someone, i.e. to make someone believe a certain target proposition.with a skeptic. Suppose a speaker A intends to persuade a skeptical character S via argumentation who fulfills the following two conditions:S does not trust A concerning any premise, i.e. S does not believe any premise merely because of A uttering it.S is generally agnostic in that she does not believe any proposition (in a certain discursive domain) unless A presents an argument for it.Both attitudes are not obviously epistemic vices, rather they have, at least at first sight, some rationale. Note that S is not generally stubborn in that she does not believe any proposition regardless of whether someone presents any argument for it. Rather, she does not believe any proposition unless one presents a persuasive argument. S’s attitude could be described as the general willingness to believe a proposition but only if one presents a persuasive argument for it. In this respect, S is only very cautious in forming her beliefs. Suppose now that A intends to persuade S via argumentation that p. S will only believe that p if A can persuasively argue for p. A can present an argument R for p consisting of premise p1.p based on p1 only if S also believes that p1. Due to S’s skeptical character, S will believe p1 only if A presents an argument for p1 consisting of premise p2. And so on.These facts about the structure of argumentation can now be connected to Agrippa’s trilemma if reinterpreted, not as an argument for skepticism, but as one about argumentation p by uttering premise pn but without presenting an argument for pn, then S will not believe pn because of A’s utterance. Accordingly, S will not believe the conclusion pn−1 for which pn is the premise and will eventually fail to believe that p. Hence, stopping at some point without providing further argumentation will not persuade the skeptic that p.We can see how argumentation with the skeptic leads to Agrippa’s trilemma. In what follows, I accept the premise that there are exactly three ways of arguing: Stopping the argumentation at some point, circular argumentation, and infinite argumentation. Let me investigate these three options with regard to argumentation with the skeptic. Take stopping at some point first. If A stops at some point arguing for p via p1, for p1 via p2, and for p2 via p. If B does not believe p when A presents an argument based on p1 for it, then B still will not believe p when A uses it as a premise for arguing for p2, at least not if B is minimally coherent. Hence, A will not persuade B via circular argumentation, and accordingly A cannot persuade our skeptical character S via circular argumentation.Let us next consider circular argumentation. Suppose that A uses circular argumentation, e.g. A argues for p.27Only infinite argumentation remains. Usually, infinitism about argumentation is rejected by claiming that human beings have finite capacities and cannot provide infinite chains of argumentation.p. Stopping at some point, presenting a circular argument, and arguing ad infinitum. First, we cannot persuade a generally skeptical person S by stopping at a certain premise because S does not believe that premise. Second, we cannot persuade S via circular argumentation because circular argumentation is never persuasive . Third, we cannot persuade S via infinite argumentation because there is no common starting point. (The impossibility of infinite argumentation is not the problem.) Since there is no further option, we cannot persuade a generally skeptical person. This is the reinterpretation of Agrippa’s Trilemma as an argument about the limits of persuasive argumentation with a skeptic.We can summarize the results as follows. There are exactly three options of arguing for p requires that two parties have the same doxastic attitudes towards p. Hence, agreement is only reached via persuasive argumentation if the hearer also believes the proposition for which she argues. If a speaker persuades a hearer about a proposition that the speaker does not believe, then no agreement is reached. Accordingly, I focus hereinafter on speakers who are honest in that they only present arguments whose premises and conclusions they believe. Speakers are not necessarily honest. A speaker might have the intention to mislead a hearer or to make her believe a proposition on the basis of fallacious argumentation. However, I assume that most speakers are in most contexts honest and that dishonest speakers who present arguments based on premises that they do not believe or who argue for conclusions that they do not believe are an exception. Moreover, I will focus on unprejudiced hearers who fulfill condition PCB, i.e. who believe the conclusion of an argument because of the argument only if they believe (sufficiently many) premises. Again, hearers do not necessarily fulfill this condition.Let me now come to deep disagreement. I am interested in cases of deep disagreement that result from different beliefs that a speaker and a hearer have concerning phenomena such as the truth of premises, rationality of arguments, and reliability of sources. In this section, I will focus on beliefs about the truth of premises.p to B based on premise p1. Given that B is unprejudiced, she will not believe that p based on R unless B believes that p1. Here, two positive options are available. B already believes that p1 prior to being confronted with it, or B trusts A and believes that p1 because of A’s utterance of p1. If neither of these cases obtains, then A might eventually persuade B via argumentation that p if A can present a persuasive argument R’ for p1, based on premise p2 and so on. However, if A fails to reach a point where B already believes the premises that A uses or where B trusts A concerning the premises, then A will fail to persuade B, given B’s unprejudicedness. Hence, we can say:p only if A presents a chain of argumentation such that, at some point B already believes the premises or B trusts A concerning some premises.Given that B is unprejudiced, A can persuade B via argumentation that Let us now also take the attitudes of speakers into account. Suppose that A is honest and only presents arguments whose premises A believes:p only if A and B agree about some premises prior to engaging in argumentation or if B trusts A concerning some premises that A presents.Given that A is honest and that B is unprejudiced, A can persuade B via argumentation that If A and B do not agree about some premises prior to engaging in argumentation or B does not trust A concerning some premises that A presents, then A cannot persuade B via argumentation. In this case, they deeply disagree and they cannot overcome this deep disagreement via argumentation.29Suppose A presents an argument R for p, stopping at some point, circular argumentation and infinite argumentation. A will not persuade B by stopping her argumentation at some point. Moreover, A cannot persuade B via circular argumentation. Finally, A is not capable of arguing ad infinitum, but even if A were capable, A would not persuade B via infinite argumentation. Hence, A cannot persuade B via argumentation. In this way, we can reconstruct Agrippa’s trilemma as an argument about the limits of persuasive argumentation given that an honest speaker and an unprejudiced hearer do not share any beliefs about premises prior to engaging in argumentation and given that the hearer does not trust the speaker about any premise used.These issues on deep disagreement are linked to Agrippa’s trilemma in the following way: Suppose that A is honest and that B is unprejudiced. Suppose further that A and B do not share any premises and that B does not trust A concerning any premises. A has exactly three options for arguing for JJ-principlep only if S is justified in believing that she is justified in believing that p.S is justified in believing that KK-principlep only if S knows that she knows that p.30S knows that Since JJ and KK are general principles, they also hold for beliefs in higher-level propositions. They imply that one is justified in believing that p only if one is justified in believing infinitely many meta-propositions or one knows that p only if one knows infinitely many meta-propositions.p. These are skeptical meta-regress arguments. A meta-regress argument, which is based on the JJ-principle, can be spelled out in detail as follows:The meta-regress argumentJJ-principlep only if S is justified in believing infinitely many different meta-propositions.Therefore, S is justified in believing that S cannot be justified in believing infinitely many different meta-propositions.p.Therefore, S cannot be justified in believing that p only if S is justified in believing that p.S knows that p.Therefore, S cannot know that An analogous skeptical argument can be formulated on the basis of the KK-principle. Concerning such meta-regress arguments, two questions arise: (1) Is the underlying iteration principle true? (2) Why shouldn’t we be capable of justifiedly believing or knowing infinitely many meta-propositions (at least implicitly)? In contemporary epistemology, these meta-regress arguments are usually regarded as unsound and rejected by rejecting the underlying iteration principles. Hence, the first question is usually answered in the negative. The second question might be answered by tacitly assuming that being justified or knowing implies having performed an act of justifying or reasoning. Accordingly, we are only justified in believing that p if we have justified p and if we have justified that we have justified p and so on. Since we cannot perform infinitely many acts of justifying or reasoning, we cannot justifiedly believe infinitely many meta-propositions. Without going into details, one can note that this assumption is controversial. If justification or knowledge is simply a positive epistemic status of a belief, then why should this status require having performed a certain act of justification or reasoning?We next come to a skeptical regress argument involving higher-order propositions. As a starting point, an iteration principle, which has some prima facie plausibility, such as the JJ-Principle or the KK-principle, is accepted as a premise of the skeptical argument:p to B. One potential reason for why B might fail to believe that p because of R is that she does not regard R as a good or rational argument for p.p or by suspending judgment about whether it is one. In response, A can present a meta-argument for the claim that R is a rational argument for p and so on. Suppose A presents an inductive argument that an+1 is F based on the premises that a1…an are F. B can, for example, challenge this argument by stressing that cases a1…an being F are not sufficiently many cases for supporting that an+1 is F, or more fundamentally by rejecting inductive arguments in general. Analogously, if S presents an abductive argument for p, then B can challenge that the argument is in fact an inference to the best explanation or S can reject abductive arguments in general. In both cases, A is forced to present a meta-argument for the rationality of the first-order argument in order to persuade B. We can see how, under certain circumstances, speakers in argumentation can be forced to enter meta-regresses of justification, namely when the speaker doubts or rejects the rationality of an argument presented.In which situations should we be in need to reason that a belief, proposition, or claim is justified in order to reach a certain epistemic goal? Again, we can find an answer when considering argumentation between two parties. Suppose that A presents argument R for S does not believe the conclusion of an argument because of the argument unless S believes that the argument is rational.S suspends judgment about the rationality of an argument unless one presents a persuasive argument that the argument is rational.The first feature is a reflective one, which ensures that a skeptic about rationality is persuaded by an argument only if she also believes that the argument is rational. The second guarantees agnosticism concerning the rationality of arguments. If the skeptic suspends judgment about its rationality or rejects it as a rational argument, she does not believe the conclusion because of the argument. A skeptic about rationality of arguments is not obviously irrational in that she rejects any argument as irrational. The first feature is reasonable and the second feature characterizes someone who is generally cautious about rationality of arguments and does not believe of any argument that it is rational unless one provides reasons for it.Let us consider again an argumentation with a skeptic. Let us now take a different skeptical character into account, someone who is skeptical about the rationality of arguments and not about the truth of its premises. Such a skeptic is a character with the following two features:p. Since S does not believe that R is a rational argument for p until A presents a persuasive argument, A has to present a meta-argument R’ for the claim that R is rational and so on. Since there is no argument or meta-argument of which S believes that it is rational without having been provided persuasive argumentation, S will not believe of any argument that it is rational and, consequently, will not believe via argumentation that p. Hence, nobody can convince a skeptic via argumentation about any proposition who is generally agnostic about the rationality of arguments.We can now easily see how a speaker A is forced to enter a potentially infinite meta-regress of argumentation when aiming at persuading a skeptic S about rationality. Suppose A presents argument R for Again, the reason for the impossibility of persuasion is not that speaker A would have to undergo an infinite meta-regress of argumentation for persuasion which she is not capable of doing. Rather, agreement about the rationality of an argument as a common starting point is missing. Under these conditions, A would also not persuade S via argumentation even if she were capable of undergoing such an infinite meta-regress. This is the reinterpretation of skeptical meta-regress arguments as arguments about the limits of persuading a skeptic about rationality of arguments.subjectively rational. They are subjectively rational since they follow their own beliefs about rational arguments, which do not necessarily match with the facts.33A skeptical character about the rationality of arguments is in disagreement with anybody who holds positive beliefs about the rationality of arguments. Let us now come to the more general case of deep disagreement between two parties about the rationality of arguments. In this paper, I am interested in speakers and hearers who follow at least their own standards of rational argumentation. For other subjects, there is hardly any systematic view available. Let us consider hearers who believe the conclusion of an argument because of the argument only if they believe that the argument presented is rational. Call such hearers p to B who is subjectively rational. If B does not believe that R is rational, she will not believe that p because of R. A has still the option to persuade B via a meta-argument MR that R is rational and thereby eventually persuade B that p, and so on. However, if there is no meta-argument which B believes to be rational, then A will eventually fail to persuade B that p via argumentation. Hence, it holds:p because of R because B does not believe that R is a rational argument and there is no meta-argument MR* in any chain of meta-arguments for R such that B believes that MR* is a rational argument prior to being confronted with it by A, then A cannot persuade B that p via argumentation.34If B is subjectively rational and fails to believe that Let me next come to deep disagreement. In order to investigate deep disagreement, we must also consider attitudes of speakers. Reflective speakers hold views about rational arguments. I call speakers who argue in line with their views in that they only present arguments that they believe to be rational subjectively rational. We can now state the following about single arguments:p via R.If A and B are subjectively rational and disagree about the rationality of R, then A will not persuade B that I assume that speakers and hearers are usually, though not always, subjectively rational.p via R.Suppose now that A presents argument R for p via argumentation.If A and B are both subjectively rational and do not agree about the rationality of a single meta-argument MR* in any potential chain of meta-arguments for R prior to engaging in argumentation, then A cannot persuade B that I assume that speakers and hearers are usually subjectively rational. Consequently, if A and B generally disagree about the rationality of arguments, then usually A cannot persuade B that p via argumentation. This is an instance of deep disagreement, which is irresolvable via argumentation.So far, we have focused on disagreement about the rationality of single arguments. If a speaker and a hearer disagree about the rationality of an argument, then they can potentially settle the dispute by presenting a persuasive argument about the rationality of the first argument and so on. Accordingly, a regress of meta-arguments that is potentially infinite is possible. By considering not only single arguments but also meta-arguments and potential meta-regresses we can say:To sum up this section: We cannot persuade a skeptic via argumentation who is generally agnostic about the rationality of arguments. Moreover, usually, A can only persuade B via argumentation if A and B agree about the rationality of some arguments prior to engaging in argumentation. If A and B lack this kind of agreement, then they deeply disagree.MooreanismExternal world knowledge is epistemically prior to knowledge that the skeptical hypotheses are false.We can know partly through competent inference from external world knowledge that the skeptical hypotheses are false.37In order to make her point, the skeptic must explain why Moorean reasoning cannot yield knowledge. There are various explanations of the defectiveness of Moorean reasoning on the market, defended by skeptics but also by many anti-skeptics. The most influential explanations for the defectiveness of Moorean reasoning are:Anti-Moorean argumentsBecause it cannot offer a persuasive argument to the skeptic;Because it can only deliver the result that the skeptical hypothesis is false;Because we must have additional and independent knowledge that the skeptical hypothesis is false.38Moorean reasoning is defective:In this paper, I will focus on the first anti-skeptical argument. This strategy is discussed by Pryor .Pp2…pn.Repeat for  O is a reliable source.41C:Bootstrapping is, like Moorean reasoning, intuitively an epistemically defective procedure, and one way of explaining its defectiveness is by means of its persuasive defectiveness. Intuitively, bootstrapping is a flawed method of persuading someone that a source is reliable. For example, if B doubts that a gas gauge is reliably working, then A will hardly convince B about its reliability by pointing towards its indications and by performing bootstrapping reasoning.Moorean reasoning can be understood as an instance of the more general phenomenon of bootstrapping. Bootstrapping, as introduced and discussed by Vogel , 2008 isThere is wide agreement among contemporary epistemologists that justification and knowledge do not suffer from any of the two regress problems discussed above and that, therefore, these arguments are unsound. As for Mooreanism and bootstrapping, the situation is different. In fact, there is an ongoing discussion about whether S can justifiedly believe or know via Moorean reasoning or bootstrapping.O indicates that p (and perhaps thereby uttering that p), uttering that O indicates p, and then uttering the further inferences required for bootstrapping.DRO is reliable or suspends judgment about O’s reliability and believes that information i is delivered by O, then B suspends judgment about the truth of i.44If B rejects that source I assume here that S does not have any further evidence about the truth of i. It is important to note that DR expresses a rational behavior. Given that S rejects that O is reliable or suspends judgment about its reliability, it is rational for S to suspend judgment about whether information delivered by O is true. For example, it is irrational for a subject to believe that a certain thermometer is unreliable but still believe what the thermometer indicates on the basis of its indication. Rather it is rational to suspend judgment about the truth of the indication. The rationality involved here is a kind of internal coherence of the subject’s body of beliefs, which must not be confused with doxastic or propositional justification. Given that S doubts that O is reliable, it is rational for S to suspend judgment about the truth of information delivered by O. This doubt however, might be justified or not.45Let us see in more detail why bootstrapping and Moorean reasoning are not instances of persuasive argumentation. Bootstrapping argumentation roughly involves a speaker A demonstrating that source Argument for the unpersuasiveness of bootstrappingO is reliable or suspends judgment about O’s reliability.Suppose that B rejects that source c because of A’s argumentation consisting of premises p1…pn and conclusion c only if B believes sufficiently many premises p1…pn. (PCB)B believes that O is reliable (or suspends judgment about O’s reliability) and believes that information i is delivered by O, then B suspends judgment about the truth of i. (DR)If B rejects that O constitutes the premises of an argument that O is reliable. (Definition of bootstrapping argumentation)In case of bootstrapping understood as argumentation, information delivered by usually recognizes A’s bootstrapping argumentation about O as bootstrapping argumentation.46B O is reliable via bootstrapping.Therefore, A usually does not persuade B that Take Vogel’s example of the gas gauge G. Suppose that B suspends judgment about the reliability of G. If A wants to persuade B via bootstrapping argumentation that G is reliable, then this project will fail. B does not believe the indications of G, since she suspends judgment about the reliability of G, and, consequently, S does not believe the conclusion of the bootstrapping argument.Putting the pieces together, we can now formulate an argument for why bootstrapping is not a persuasive way of arguing.Moorean argumentationp by pointing towards S’s experienceA demonstrates that S’s experience delivers that pB thereby believes that S’s sense apparatus delivers that pA utters that p is true based on S’s experience as of p (DR)B suspends judgment about whether p (PCB)Therefore, B does not believe that S’s experience accurately indicates that …Therefore, B does not believe via Moorean argumentation that S’s sense apparatus is reliableSuppose S’s inner skeptic B doubts that S’s sense apparatus is reliable and A, S’s inner believer, aims to persuade B about its reliability via Moorean argumentation.This is the reinterpretation of the argument for external world skepticism including the claim that Moorean reasoning is epistemically flawed for it is not persuasive as an argument about the limits of argumentation.Let us now investigate the particular case of Moorean reasoning. With Moorean reasoning, the process of argumentation is not one between two actual persons. Rather, it must be understood as an argumentation between an inner believer and an inner skeptic.O is reliable then A can use another source O’ for persuading B that O is reliable. For example, A can use a dipstick for demonstrating that a gas gauge is reliable. However, A will succeed in persuading B that O is reliable via O’ only if B believes that O’ is reliable, and so on. This way, problems concerning Moorean reasoning can collapse into an infinite regress problem.50Let us now consider the case of arguing with a skeptic S, not necessarily an inner one, who is generally agnostic about the reliability of sources and suspends judgment about the reliability of any source unless one provides a persuasive demonstration for its reliability.p, then A cannot persuade B via a source that p.If B doubts the reliability of any source that A can use for delivering premises for an argument for Suppose now that A is honest about sources in that she uses sources for argumentation only if A believes that these sources are reliable and B follows DR. In this case, it holds:p if A and B agree about the reliability of a source prior to engaging in argumentation.A can only persuade B via a source that If A and B lack any agreement about the reliability of sources that A can use in order to argue for p, then A fails to persuade B that p for a systematic reason. In this case, speaker and hearer deeply disagree and this disagreement cannot be resolved by consulting any source.51This analysis of the limits of argumentation with skeptics about reliability is of rather theoretical interest. Let us now investigate the consequences for deep disagreement, which is a broader and more relevant social phenomenon. By generalizing the argument for the impossibility of persuading a skeptic who is skeptical about the reliability of sources and assuming that B follows DR we can say:Some skeptical arguments have a certain intuitive appeal, but they are not sound arguments about the extent of knowledge. However, they can be reinterpreted as arguments about the preconditions and limits of persuasive argumentation, explaining why we cannot persuade skeptical characters. Moreover, these reinterpretations reveal certain instances of deep disagreement. (1) A reinterpretation of Agrippa’s trilemma shows that we cannot persuade a skeptic who is agnostic about any proposition by stopping at a certain point, circular argumentation, or infinite argumentation. Two parties deeply and irresolvably disagree if they do not share any agreement about sufficiently many premises prior to engaging in argumentation. (2) Skeptical meta-regress arguments can be reinterpreted as showing that we cannot persuade a skeptic who is generally agnostic about the rationality of arguments. There is deep and irresolvable disagreement between two parties who do not share any agreement about the rationality of arguments prior to engaging in argumentation. (3) Bootstrapping and Moorean reasoning are not instances of persuasive argumentation. Two parties deeply and irresolvably disagree if they do not agree about the reliability of any source prior to engaging in argumentation.52p shows that one does not know that p. However, this line of thought is mistaken. The insights about the corresponding versions of deep disagreement show that the capacity of persuading someone via argumentation is determined by whether speaker and hearer share sufficiently many beliefs about the truth of premises, rationality of arguments, or reliability of sources. It does not depend on the epistemic position of the speaker. A speaker might be in a perfect epistemic position concerning a proposition, i.e. she might know the proposition according to the highest standards for knowledge, yet she might fail to persuade a skeptic or someone who does not share the beliefs required for persuasive argumentation. Therefore, knowing that p or being justified to believe that p does not imply having the capacity to persuasively argue for p. The skeptical move of pointing towards the persuasive defectiveness of certain arguments and then concluding that one cannot know or be justified to believe is illegitimate.53One might object that skepticism enters through the backdoor when reinterpreting skeptical arguments as arguments about the limits of argumentation with the skeptic since the fact that one cannot provide a persuasive argument to the skeptic for As for deep disagreement, two questions are of particular interest: What is deep disagreement? Is deep disagreement resolvable or not? Both questions have been settled. We see that there are at least three kinds of deep disagreement, one relying on systematic disagreement about premises, one about the rationality of arguments, and one about the reliability of sources.The theses about the limits of persuasive argumentation with a skeptic are of rather theoretical interest, providing a new view on well-known skeptical arguments. However, the theses about variants of deep disagreement and the explanation for their irresolvability are of significant social relevance. Actual instances for any type of deep disagreement can presumably be found, for example, concerning the preconditions of intercultural argumentation. However, finding and discussing such applications is beyond the scope of this paper.


We have now added O.D. as a corresponding author due to her role in providing resources and supervision for the study and her specialized contribution to the philosophical implications of our results. The change does not affect any of the other sections in the article or its conclusions. The authors apologize for any confusion caused to the readers.


Nearly a century has passed since the first studies of life in the subsurface . Ricardo Amils: Conceptualization .The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.


The authors wish to correct the following error in the original paper .An additional affiliation  has been added to the first author Lulu Liu. Due to this change, the numbers of the rest of the affiliations of each author were updated.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.


This Expression of Concern is for the above article, published online on 14 April 2022 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), and has been published by agreement between the journal Editor‐in‐Chief and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The Expression of Concern has been agreed due to concerns regarding data presented in Table 2. A third party has brought to our attention that they cannot repeat this work and that some mesh terms are not accurate. As such they question the accuracy of the data in Tables 1 and 2 as they find some inconsistencies in the numbers of eligible articles based on their re‐analysis of the approach. The IWJ editorial team have been unable to reach the authors of this article for comment. The author's institution has also been contacted without success. Since we cannot verify the accuracy of the challenge or the original data, the journal is issuing this Expression of Concern to alert readers.Ji, X, Zhao, Y, Zhang, L, Liu, Y. Benign prostatic hyperplasia wound after surgical removal in subjects on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy: A meta‐analysis. Int Wound J. 2022; 19(8): 1990–1999. doi:


Retraction Note to: Stem Cell Research & Therapy (2018) 9:348 10.1186/s13287-018-1082-zThe Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the binding site between IL-6 mRNA and miR-665. Specifically, the sequence of IL6 3'UTR reported in this article appears to refer to ILR6 rather than IL6. Additionally, in the TargetScan database, miR-665 does not appear to be among the predicted miRNAs targeting IL6. Further checks by the Publisher identified the following concerns with the presented data:In Figs. 4f and 6g, three images appear to originate from the same sample .In Figs. 5f, 6f and 7a, all western blot images have highly similar background features, and a number of bands appear to have straight vertical edges, which are inconsistent with the backgrounds.The authors have stated that Figs. 4f and 6g indeed contain errors, and that the western blots are not presented in their original state. They have provided raw data to address these concerns; however, these data contain further inconsistencies and highly similar images. The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the data and conclusions of this article.Ruoyu Wu has not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction notice. Jihao Ruan, Yongjin Sun, Mengyu Liu, Zhuang Sha, Cunyi Fan and Qingkai Wu have not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


In conversational query answering systems, context plays a significant role in accurately and meaningfully carrying it forward. In many chatbots, such as in Expedia, the discussion quickly degenerates into circling back to restarting the conversation or to inviting a live agent to intervene because the bot could not grasp the context. Contexts shorten interactions by way of implied query constraints to narrow search and to not repeat them in subsequent queries. In this paper, we introduce a novel way of viewing contexts as a distance function via the concept of query relaxation. We demonstrate that a typed domain distance function is sufficient to model context in a conversation. Our approach is based on the idea of non-monotonic constraint inheritance in a context hierarchy. Early research in database (DB) and artificial intelligence (AI) context has been modeled sometimes indirectly without an explicit treatment. For example, cooperative query answering , 2, indeRestaurants below.For example, consider the query against the table Q1: Is there a five star rated Vietnamese restaurant in Moscow, Idaho?Q1. In CoBase |end|backtrack|fresh conversation;A conversation begins with begin conversation instruction either in cumulative or in disjunctive mode. It can end with end conversation instruction. An entirely new conversation can be started from inside an active conversation with fresh conversation instruction. Conversations are unnamed sessions and are not persistent. Therefore, once a conversation is abandoned (using an end conversation instruction), it cannot be re-entered; it must start afresh. However, a new and additional initial context can be established by issuing fresh conversation instruction without ending a conversation, giving rise to conversation forests.Once inside a conversation, a contextual query can begin. While a query generally has a traditional SQL syntax, it is annotated with a context modifier of the following form with a well-defined grammar.C1 [parent C2] as context A1, A2 …, An select r1, r2 … , kr from θ; where C1 and C2 are conversation wide distinct identifiers2. The construction and issuance of these contextual queries must follow specific protocols and deserve a substantial discussion. However, in this article we want to be brief and only discuss essential components of ConSQL.In the above form, C statement without the parent option since it must be the root, and the only context C statement until fresh conversation is issued. All subsequent statements must be of the form context C parent C′ to place the query under a node in the conversation or context tree. In both instances, a stack pointer points to the current context and all computations take place within its environment. To relocate the context pointer to alter the computational environment, backtrack conversation command can be issued to move the context toward the parent of the node. In the current edition of ConSQL, we do not see any need for a forward context pointer relocation particularly when there are multiple candidates, e.g., box 1 in In a new or fresh conversation, the first contextual query must start with context While several syntactic shortcuts are possible, we do not overburden the syntax of ConSQL to make querying easier since such shortcuts can be supported in the user interfaces in some fashion. For example, currently we require that the the query in step 3 be phrased in ConSQL as follows.Q4: context C parent D as #, Fare select FlightFlights from Origin=“BWI” and Destination=“SSA” and Fare<500 and Date=11/10; where where the initial context is set up asQ3: context D as #, Fare select FlightFlights from Origin=“GEG” and Destination=“SSA” and Fare<500 and Date=11/10; where Q5: context C parent D as #, Fare select FlightFlights from Origin=“BWI”;; where it would essentially mean the same query Q4 since it inherits all the unaltered constraints of Q3. In principle, we also allow adding new relations in the from clause in a subordinate context, i.e., monotonic inflation of information space so that all previously listed constraints can be enforced. For this reason also, we require the full syntax (not the Q5 form) not to make it difficult when mapping to SQL for execution and be counter intuitive.Again, note that it is possible to imagine several fancy syntactic alternatives. Basically what we want in a modified context is to alter a condition in the parent context to relax it. Therefore, even if we allowed the syntax4.2The semantics of ConSQL queries can be established based on the SQL queries with some fine tuning. In the current edition of ConSQL, we choose a tuple similarity based semantics for ConSQL in the following way.Definition 1 (Relaxation). Given two conditionsover an attribute A in query Q, is called a relaxation or a relaxed condition, ifwhere e is the evaluation function of querywith conditionand i ∈ {1, 2}.4.2.1We assume that there is a type-polymorphic distance function Definition 2 (Close to Intent). Letbe a relaxation ofover an attribute A of type t, and let c2and c1be the constants respectively. The closeness of a value v to the initial context or the intent is then given byv1 and v2, v1 is closer to the intent than v2 if Thus, given two values Definition 3 (Preferred Tuples). Let t is a tuple over the schemeAlso letare relaxations corresponding to the initial contextswhereThe (multiplicative) tuple closenessis given byFinally, for two tuplesandis preferred overifholds.k response upper limit, we now can easily choose the top k closest responses.The tuple closeness ranges between 0 and 1. It must be noted here that preference relation is defined only using the relaxation conditions over the attributes involved, i.e., the remaining attributes do not play any role. Given a top-4.3Implementation of ConSQL is ongoing and a full discussion of its implementation is outside the scope of this paper. Issues such as how to map queries to SQL for execution, how to choose preferred tuples as response, how to implement cumulative and disjunctive context switching, are deferred to a later article. In this section we mainly focus on a generic distance function to compute the closeness of a value to help implement the idea of preferred tuples instead.In general, all relaxations imply acceptable deviations. In CoBase, the relaxation was based on a carefully constructed TAH. Such a structure makes it easier to compute deviations for almost all types of objects or values. For example, we can potentially create a TAH for airports based on GPS locations, overall operation, average delay, or traffic volume, and so many other ways or dimensions. However, as mentioned earlier, developing and maintaining a multi-dimensional TAH is truly complicated, if not impossible.δt that is capable of returning the distance between two objects x and y of type t that will range between 0 and 1, relative to y within a linear distance between y and z. This function will measure how close x is to y given that the object z is assumed to be farther than y satisfying triangular inequality relationship in a metric space, i.e., d ≤ d + d.A practical strategy could be to develop a polymorphic distance function 5Context is a complex concept to model and serves a unique purpose in various applications. Therefore its definition and application varies. In this article, we have defined context as the intent of a query the response to which we try to approximate as closely as possible. We have leveraged the idea of query relaxation that previously played a major role in designing cooperative query answering systems, and have shown that in chatbot type applications our concept of context can play a significant role in improving conversations and services. The idea presented is at an early stage. The implementation of a query processor is ongoing while its efficacy has been tested as a prototype implementation see  by proce


Haroun, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed, Osman Amir, Mohammed Alfatih, Akram Khalid Al Tigany Al Shiekh, Mazin Abdelraham Osman Ahmed, Alshareef Nour, Radi Tofaha Alhusseini, Waddah Aljaely Mohammed Osman, Mohamed Abdulkarim, Mohammed Eltahier Abdalla Omer, Ibrahim M. Mahgoub, HSR2523, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hsr2.523} has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Charles Young and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed given the journal has received evidence confirming that the peer review process of this paper was manipulated. As a result, the conclusions reported in the article are not considered reliable.The above article, published online on {First published: 28 February 2022} in Wiley Online Library { Haroun, Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed, Osman Amir, Mohammed Alfatih, Akram Khalid Al Tigany Al Shiekh, Mazin Abdelraham Osman Ahmed, Alshareef Nour, Radi Tofaha Alhusseini, Waddah Aljaely Mohammed Osman, Mohamed Abdulkarim, Mohammed Eltahier Abdalla Omer, Ibrahim M. Mahgoub, HSR2523, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hsr2.523} has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Charles Young and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed given the journal has received evidence confirming that the peer review process of this paper was manipulated. As a result, the conclusions reported in the article are not considered reliable.The above article, published online on {First published: 28 February 2022} in Wiley Online Library {


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer 19, 400 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5593-5In Fig. 2b, the circRNA overexpression group images appear highly similar to the Control group in Fig. 2d of (, now retFigs. 4c, 4d and 8f appear to contain overlapping panels with Figs. 4d, 4e, 7e and 7f of ;In Fig. 5a, Mock SCC25 and CAL27 appear to contain an overlapping area.In Fig. 5b, Mock SCC25 and CAL27 appear to original from the same sample, with rotation and minor modification.The Editor has retracted this article at the Corresponding Author's request. After publication, concerns were raised regarding highly similar images used in this and other articles, specifically:The authors have stated that these images were misused. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Wen Su, Feng Wang, Yuehong Shen and Hongyu Yang agree to this retraction. Yufan Wang, Shuai Sun and Minghua Li have not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


The result of the dose calculation is not affected by this. The authors regret the confusion this may have caused.In the article by Grünewald  al. 2023, there w


Both the Editor and the authors apologize 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, in Fig. 4 on p. 650, the same β-actin bands had apparently been used to show the experimental effects of the proteasome inhibitor MG-132 on c-FLIP in HSC-2 cells in Fig. 4A, and the effects of MG-132 on IAPs in HSC-3 cells in Fig. 4B. In addition, for the fourth lane in the gel showing the effects of MG-132 on c-FLIP in HSC-3 cells, this should have been labelled as ‘+MG-132 / +TRAIL’ (not as ‘-/-’). Upon contacting the authors in relation to this matter, they could only admit that errors had been made in the preparation of the figure; moreover, they no longer had access to the original data owing to the time that has elapsed since the publication of the paper, and it would be impossible for them to now repeat this experiment. After having considered this matter and in conjunction with a request made by the authors, the Editor of


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 38, 57 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-019-1070-xThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding Figure 4B: the LN229 and U251 ZEB2 bands appear to be identical but flipped horizontally. Additionally, the authors have been unable to provide convincing documentation that ethics approval was obtained for this study. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.Author Shuang Feng disagrees with this retraction. The other authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Correction: Diabetol Metab Syndr (2019) 11:85 10.1186/s13098-019-0482-2Following publication of the original article , the authttps://www.pfizer.com). Support for publication fees and open access is provided by ECLAT srl, a research based spin-off company of the University of Catania, with the help of a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Inc., a US nonprofit 501(c)(3) private foundation (https://www.smokefreeworld.org) which receives funding from Philip Morris. The contents, selection, and presentation of facts, as well as any opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the authors and under no circumstances shall be regarded as reflecting the positions of the sponsors.This paper was partly supported by grant WS5086648 from GRAND , an independently reviewed competitive grants program funded by Pfizer Inc, a US biopharmaceutical company active in the research, production and marketing of smoking cessation drugs (


Zheng ZZ performed the experiments. Yang JB, Wei XP, Song TN, Meng YQ participated in the completion of the operations. Zheng ZZ, Chen YZ, Liu Q analyzed the data. All the authors had access to the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.


Editorial Expression of Concern: HORM CANC (2013) 4:176–185 10.1007/s12672-013-0137-yThe Editor-in-Chief would like to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding Fig. 2 presented in this article. Similarities have been noted in lanes 2 and 6 of Fig. 2B. Readers are advised to interpret the results with caution. Authors have not responded to any correspondence from the publisher about this editorial expression of concern.


Retraction Note: Cardiovascular Toxicology (2022) 22:916–928https://doi.org/10.1007/s12012-022-09768-0It appears a GADPH has been re-used in Figs. 1A, 1B and 2B.In Fig. 1, TNFa and NFkB look very similar to each other.In Fig. 2B, the first and last lanes of the GPx blot look very similar to each other.The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because of the following issues:The authors provided raw data which did not contradict these concerns and stated they did use the same GAPDH blot in the 3 figures. The Editor in Chief, therefore, has lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. None of the authors agree to this retraction.


In “Personalized Precision Medicine for Health Care Professionals: Development of a Competency Framework” , the authors noted several errors.In the originally published paper, a typographical error in the corresponding author’s email address, formatted as:fmartin@isciiI.esThis has been changed to:fmartin@isciii.esIn the last paragraph of the “Introduction” section, the authors noted that one reference was not included in the original manuscript. A new citation (numbered 7) has been added to the list of references and cited in the following sentence:Accordingly, this project aimed to define a proposal of common domains and competencies for today’s health care professionals, as well as those who will emerge in the future .The citation added to the reference list is as follows:Fundación Instituto Roche. Competency Personalized Precision Medicine for healthcare professionals. 2021. URL: https://www.institutoroche.es/static/pdfs/ Final_Report_Competencies_PPM_DEF1.pdf [accessed 2023-02-08]The addition of this citation modified the order of the rest of the citations.In Table 2, an acronym was originally typed incorrectly as “OLPPDGDR”. This has been corrected to “OLPDPGDR” both in row “D2.11” and in the corresponding footnote “c”. The same error occurred in Figure 4, which has also been updated accordingly.An error was also noted in the first paragraph of the “Acknowledgments” section. The sentence:We are grateful to the working group for aiding the development of this project, contributing to the preparation of this document, and sharing their perspectives on the key elements and training needs for the definition of competencies in the areas of interest of personalized precision medicine.Has been changed to:We are grateful to the Fundación Instituto Roche and the working group for aiding the development of this project, and sharing their perspectives on the key elements and training needs for the definition of competencies in the areas of interest of personalized precision medicine.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on February 21, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data.The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Fig. 2D sh-MRPS23 panel is identical to Fig. 4C sh-MRPS23 panel (bottom left) and has some strong similarity with Fig. 4C sh-MRPS23 + LPS + PDTC panel (bottom right). A section in the panel for Fig. 2D sh-MRPS23 has strong similarity with Fig. 4C sh-Control + LPS + PDTC panel (top right). A section in the panel for Fig. 2D sh-control has strong similarity to a section in Fig. 4C sh-control + LPS + PDTC panel (top right).In Fig. 4C a section in the panel for sh-control (top left) is a stretched version of a section in the panel sh-control with LPS and PDTC (top right).Fig. 3C contains multiple duplicated images. The first four tumour images in the Control group are identical to the last four images in the sh-MRPS23 + LPS group. The third image in the control group is identical to the first image in the sh-control + LPS group. The final image in the control group is identical to the third image in the sh-MRPS23 group. The third image in the sh-MRPS23 group is identical to the first image in the sh-MRPS23 + LPS group.The authors were asked to provide the raw data for this article but did not respond. 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.The authors were informed about the retraction of the article but have not responded.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, Date: 18/7/2023


This article has been retracted: Aging has completed its investigation of this paper. We found overlap between several transwell assay images used for multiple figures and data published by different authors. Specifically, in Figure 2E, the motility image for A549 si-NC overlaps an image from [age from . In Figuage from . In Figuage from ,7. Finalage from . As a reThe Administration of the Shandong University, Guangxi Medical University and their respective affiliated hospitals was notified about the retraction by Aging Journal because of the improper use of multiple pictures included in this manuscript. The authors apologize for any inconvenience this retraction has caused for the scientific community.


There was an error in the original publication  in the dThe original equation was:The correct equation is:f0 used in the text were obtained using the equation and the correction does not change the claims or arguments of this paper.All 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 “iCHECK-DH: Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations” , the authors noted one error.The degree list for author Christian Lovis was previously reported as:MD, PhDAnd has now been changed to:MPH, MDThe correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on May 18, 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.


Corrigendum to: Evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain levels in multiple sclerosis and non-demyelinating diseases of the central nervous system: clinical and biochemical perspective .This corrigendum corrects funding information to: This project was partly supported by Gazi University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (BAP) (project code: 01/2019-38). The authors would like to thank Gazi University for funding this project. The authors sincerely apologize for the error and confirm that this correction does not change the conclusion of the article.


Retraction note: Nanoscale Res Lett (2021) 16:310.1186/s11671-020-03452-4The Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the appearance of the Western blots along with the following issues:Unlikely appearance of the data presented in the flow cytometry histograms in Fig. 5A/E, in particular the unusually-looking peaks;In Table 1 "Primer sequence", the putative PTEN primers appear to align to NF kappa B instead.The authors provided quantification data for the Western blots but were unable to provide uncropped gels and blots. The Editors, therefore, have lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. The authors did not explicitly state whether they agree to this retraction.


In "Assessment of the Efficacy, Safety, and Effectiveness of Weight Control and Obesity Management Mobile Health Interventions: Systematic Review" :e12612) the authors noted one clarification that should be added.In the Acknowledgments section it says:All authors contributed equally. The research for this paper was fully funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant number PI16/01764.It should say:All authors contributed equally. The research for this paper was fully funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant number PI16/01764 co-funded by FEDER.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on April 10, 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.


The authors regret that an incorrect grant number was shown in the acknowledgements section of the published article. The corrected section should read:This study was supported by the Technology Development Program (S2830047) by the Ministry of SMEs and Startups (MSS) and by Technology Development Project for Safety Management of Household Chemical Products (2022002980010) by the Ministry of Environment (ME), Republic of Korea.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


However, Guest Editors of this Special Issue later identified thispaper as a contribution worth mention related to the Special Issue.Therefore, the paper has been linked to the Special Issue.This paper was originally notrequested by the authors for consideration in the submissions forthe Methods for Omics Research 2023 Special Issue,


In the original article, inthe third sentence of the sixth paragraph in the “MATERIALSAND METHODS” section, “700 μL of MES buffer ” was written instead of “700 μL ofpure water” . This small mistakedue to oversight has been rectified below. The authors apologize forthe error.Rectified Sentence in the Sixth Paragraph in “MATERIALSAND METHODS” Section:g and 25°C for 3 min and washed with 700 μL of pure water six times.The suspension was centrifugedat 5000


Clinical Neuroradiology also slightly dropped with the impact factor from 3.156 to 2.8  but many other factors.Clinical Neuroradiology to establish this journal as one of the leading journals in the field.We would like to thank all authors and reviewers for their continuous support of Martin BendszusEditor-in-Chief


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Are We Sure We Fully Understand What an Infodemic Is? A Global Perspective on Infodemiological Problems.”Dear Authors,This paper  presents


Furthermore, they regret that these errors were introduced into the paper, even though they did not substantially alter any of the major conclusions reported in the paper, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The corrected versions of


In “The Use of Person-Centered Language in Medical Research Journals Focusing on Psoriasis: Cross-sectional Analysis” :e28415) two errors were noted.In the originally published manuscript, incorrect ORCID numbers were listed for authors Benjamin Heigle and Matt Vassar. The ORCID numbers have been corrected as follows:Benjamin Heigle: 0000-0003-3724-0756Matt Vassar: 0000-0003-2859-6152The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on July 16, 2021, 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.


J Arrhythmia. 2023;39:227–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12817Retraction: Hasegawa K, Fukuoka Y, Ohno S, Horie M, Tada H. Computerized misinterpretation of QT interval in 12‐lead electrocardiogram and its clinical consequences: a case of recurrent syncope. Journal of Arrhythmia, published online on January 30, 2023, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) and in Volume 39, pp. 227–230, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief Kazuo Matsumoto and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to duplication with a previously published article from the same group of authors.The above article from  J Arrhythmia. 2023;39:227–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12817Retraction: Hasegawa K, Fukuoka Y, Ohno S, Horie M, Tada H. Computerized misinterpretation of QT interval in 12‐lead electrocardiogram and its clinical consequences: a case of recurrent syncope. Journal of Arrhythmia, published online on January 30, 2023, in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) and in Volume 39, pp. 227–230, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief Kazuo Matsumoto and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to duplication with a previously published article from the same group of authors.The above article from


The correct information should be “This project received funding from the The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Jin TY and Li ZH analyzed the data. Jin TY, Tang JW and Xu J contributed analysis tools. Chen L and He ZC provided critical inputs on design, analysis and interpretation of the study. All the authors had access to the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.


Following the publication and correction of this article , 2, conc○ Fig 3A IFN-γ and Fig 5A IFN-γ;○ Fig 3A IL-4 and Fig 5A IL-4;○ Fig 3A TGF-β and Fig 5A TGF-β;○ Fig 3A GAPDH and Fig 5A GAPDH.The following Untreated Control RT-PCR results appear similar:○ The lower left and right quadrants of the Fig 5D IFN-γ “Untreated unfixed TAMs” and TGF-β “CuNG-treated unfixed TAMs, in transwell” panels;○ The Fig 6C 72h “In vitro CuNG Treated TAMs” panel and 96h “In vitro CuNG Treated TAMs panel”.The following FACS results appear more similar than would be expected from independent results:Although the similar untreated control samples appear to represent the same experimental conditions, the authors commented that the Fig 3A results were obtained from experiments conducted at a different time than the Fig 5A results, calling into question whether one or both of these experiments were conducted alongside the appropriate controls. The corresponding author provided gel data underlying the published Fig 3A results; these underlying data were incomplete and suggest that the Fig 3A results were prepared from spliced gels. The original data underlying Fig 5A are no longer available.Additional concerns were raised regarding data presented in Figs 3A and 5A, but due to the low resolution of the published figures and the incomplete underlying data set, the journal has not been able to assess the merit of the additional concerns raised with these figures.The authors explained that the Fig 5D experiments were conducted on the same day and on the same instrument. However, this does not clarify the level of similarity observed between these two panels. Regarding the similarity between the Fig 6C results, the authors commented that it is possible an error was made during the figure preparation. The authors provided the data underlying the Fig 6C results and a replacement Fig 6. However, the original FACS data underlying Fig 5D are no longer available. In the absence of the original FACS data underlying Fig 5D, the journal is unable to confirm the FACS results presented in this figure.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability of these data, the SG agreed with the retraction. SKC and SC did not agree with the retraction. AM, JMB, PC, AG, AA, DM, RB, MA, JB, PKD, GS, MC, and TD either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


BMC Public Health (2023) 23:51010.1186/s12889-023-15173-1During the publication process 2 errors were introduced in the PDF publication:1) In page 26, the text “Not introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft food (6-8 months)” was missing in the IYCF component column.2) In page 27, the text “Tariqujjaman et al. (2022) [61]” was missing in the Author, year column.The original article has been updated to correct these errors. The publisher apologizes to the authors & readers for the inconvenience.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-023-41619-6, published online 21 September 2023Correction to: The original version of this Article contained an error in the results, which incorrectly read:ρ of temperature xmap farmland NPP indicate that farmland NPP is not a cause of temperature. And the much-smaller ρ of precipitation xmap farmland NPP majorly result from the above-introduced enslaved effect from the strong causal influence of precipitation on farmland NPP. In other words, farmland NPP can partially reflect precipitation.’‘The zero The correct version now reads:ρ of precipitation xmap farmland NPP indicate that farmland NPP is not a cause of precipitation. And the much-smaller ρ of temperature xmap farmland NPP majorly result from the above-introduced enslaved effect from the strong causal influence of temperature on farmland NPP. In other words, farmland NPP can partially reflect temperature.’‘The zero This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 22, 158 (2022)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-022-03629-7The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding image similarities among the panels in Fig. 8. Specifically:The p-JNK ENC image appears to overlap with p-JNK Dexa;The NF-κB Normal control appears to overlap with NF-κB ECN.Additionally, Fig. 8 TNF-a Dexa and ECN images appear to overlap with Fig. 13 TNF-a NCHDH and CFA in [The authors have provided the raw data to address these concerns. However, further checks by the Publisher identified numerous irregularities in the raw data, and further cases of data overlap with . The EdiSalman Khan does not agree to this retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


This is the authors’ response to peer-review reports for “Emergence of the First Strains of SARS-CoV-2 Lineage B.1.1.7 in Romania: Genomic Analysis.”1. The manuscript  needs soResponse: Per the reviewer’s [viewer’s  comment,1. In the Materials and Methods section, authors mentioned that “Twenty samples, collected from patients in the cities of Cluj, Craiova and Suceava counties from Romania were selected for analysis, including patients with possible contacts with UK infected individuals.” In the Introduction section, the authors also described the first few possible UK variant cases in Romania.Are these 20 cases sequenced by authors related to those cases mentioned in the Introduction? If not, can authors provide some details about the subjects' past travel history? For example, did they stay in UK for more than 2 weeks before they traveled to Romania? And when were these samples collected? The timeline is important to understand how the disease spread and whether they are the first strains of B.1.1.7 in Romania.Response: We thank the reviewer [reviewer  for his/The other four samples presented in the Results section were sequenced by other laboratories in the country, so there is no connection with the 20 samples sequenced by us.Information regarding the travel history of the patients was added, where appropriate. Sample collection dates were added to the table in Multimedia Appendix 1.2. The authors claimed that “the Romanian strains bearing the particular ORF8 mutations described above clearly originated in the UK, which is also supported by the fact that the patient from Suceava county arrived in Romania from the UK.” I have a similar question about the travel details of the patient as well as the timeline.Response: Information regarding the Romanian patient bearing the ORF8 mutation was added in the Results section.3. From a public health standpoint, how did the authors deal with the “news” of the new variant? Was there any communication with local officials or support for contact tracing?Response: This information was added to the text. In addition, we mentioned that our laboratory is 1 of 4 (at the moment of writing the paper) that reports weekly genomic data to government agencies. These data are then integrated with epidemiological data to inform public health agencies.4. In the Discussion section, the authors described that “Many European countries, including Romania, lag in genomic sequencing”. Can the authors provide more details about why Romania lags in genomic sequencing for COVID? For example, cost, equipment, access to labs/institutes. This can help readers and other researchers to understand the issue.Response: The information was added to the text.


A further independent investigation conducted in the Editorial Office revealed that other western blotting data were likely to have been shared in common, comparing between the two articles.Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, it was admitted that the authors Feng Chang, Jian-Na Liu and Jun-Xin Lin did not initially provide their agreement to be authors on this paper; otherwise, the rest of the authors 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 submitted for publication prior to the submission of this article to


Following an institutional investigation by the University of Sargodha, the authors regret the omission of Tahir Mehmood in the original author list.The correct authorship list and affiliations list is displayed herein. The updated acknowledgements and author contributions are shown below.Conceptualization, Aliya Ajaz and Muhammad Ashraf Shaheen; methodology, Muhammad Ashraf Shaheen, Aliya Ajaz, Abu Bakar Siddique; software, Maqsood Ahmed; data collection, structure solution, refinement, validation, Khurram Shahzad Munawar, Muhammad Fayyaz ur Rehman and Abdul Karim; formal analysis, Nazir Ahmad; investigation, Abdul Karim; resources, Muhammad Ashraf Shaheen; data curation, Aliya Ajaz; writing—original draft preparation, Aliya Ajaz; writing—review and editing, Abu Bakar Siddique; visualization, Muhammad Fayyaz ur Rehman; supervision, Muhammad Ashraf Shaheen, Tahir Mehmood; project administration, Muhammad Ashraf Shaheen. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.We are thankful to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) for providing financial assistance to PhD Scholar (Aliya Ajaz) to conduct a part of her research work in the United States under the International Research Support Initiative Program (IRSIP).The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer 19, 224 (2019)10.1186/s12885-019-5419-5The Editors have retracted this article because of significant concerns with a number of figures, specifically:Figure 7d, CD133 panel, appears to be the same as Fig. 2D, Oct 4 panel, in [Figure 4b, FAP-a panel, appears to be the same as Fig. 3D, p53 panel, in Figure 3a, b-actin panel, appears to be the same as Fig. 3K, b-actin panel, in [The authors were contacted and asked for an explanation but did not provide one. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data in this article.Kai-qun Ren agrees with the retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.


This article has been retracted: Aging has completed its investigation of this paper. We found multiple internal duplications and overlap between some of the transwell assay images used for Figures 3C,E and 5C,D,F and data published the preceding year by other authors [ authors . The aut


Jirun Sun was not included as an author in the original publication . The corAuthor Contributions: Conceptualization, X.W., S.Y. and J.S.; methodology, S.Y. and J.S.; validation, X.W.; formal analysis, X.W.; investigation, X.W.; resources, X.W. and J.S.; data curation, X.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.W.; writing—review and editing, X.W. and S.Y.; visualization, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.In the original publication, the funder, NIH, grant number DE023752 to Jirun Sun, was not included. The updated funding section appears here. Funding: This research was funded by NIH, grant number DE023752.In addition to affiliations 1 and 2, the updated affiliations should include the following:3 The Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA4 Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02115, USAThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Figure 3E and F and Fig. 8C and D were omitted from the HTML version, although they do appear in the PDF version. The missing panels should appear as shown below.Volume 9, no. 1, e00496-21, 2021,


Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 10.1038/s41392-019-0082-5, published online 06 December 2019Retraction to: Figs. 2f and 3f (HUH-7 Scramble) appear to contain an overlapping area.HepG2 Scramble in Fig. 2d and HUH-7 LV-DKK1 in Fig. 3d appear to be mirror images.A part of the HUH7 Scramble image in Fig. 2d appears to be enlarged and presented as HepG2 Scramble.The authors therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.The authors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding suspected overlap in the cell images in Figs. 2 and 3. Specifically:All authors agree to this retraction.


In our original paper, in theAcknowledgments section, one sentence is missing. The complete Acknowledgmentssection is below. This correction does not affect any of the resultsof the work.


Commentary: Computational Analysis for ERAS and Other Surgical Processes: Commentary From Clinical Perspective By Mills H, Acquah R, Tang N, Cheung L, Klenk S, Glassen R, Pirson M, Albert A, Hoang DT and Van TN (2022). Front. Surg. 9:946963. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.946963.A Retraction of the Original Research Article Following publication, the publisher uncovered evidence that several false identities were listed as authors for this article. During this investigation, the publisher was unable to confirm the institutions of the authors Hilla Mills, Ronald Glassen, Susanne Klenk, Nova Tang, or Luke Cheung. This investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.The investigation also uncovered concerns about the presentation and validity of the data in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Surgery and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.The authors did not respond to contact regarding this retraction.


This article has been retracted at the request of the authors due to a miscommunication resulting in the failure to obtain proper ethics review from Shiga University of Medical Science. The authors did obtain ethical review and approval from Seijo University and were under the impression that ethical review from Shiga University of Medical Science was not required. Once informed of their error, the authors contacted the Shiga University of Medical Science ethics committee in an attempt to receive retrospective ethical review and approval, however this request was denied. As a result, the authors have regretfully requested this retraction. After a thorough review, the journal has agreed and the article has been retracted.


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 EDX data in Fig. 2b. An investigation is underway, and an Expression of Concern will continue to be associated with the article until a final outcome is reached.Laura Fisher2nd November 2023RSC AdvancesExecutive Editor,


In Figs