This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Exercise-Induced Hypoalgesia Following Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation and Resistance Training Among Individuals With Shoulder Myofascial Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial”This paper  set to eThe paper holds several strengths, including random assignment and the inclusion of PNF, 2 resistance training exercise types, and 1 passive control group, which enables comparison across exercise conditions. Authors justifiably correct for multiple comparisons. The discussion thoroughly interprets the findings and relates them to existing literature. Some questions and potential limitations are listed below.1. The study is limited to young women (18-30 years old) and therefore has limited generalizability to men, as well as women above the age of 30 years. Authors partially acknowledge this in the limitations section (with regard to gender).2. The sample size in each group is modest (n=18-20), limiting statistical power.3. Did the authors have a specific hypothesis about the relative effect of PNF, isometric, and isotonic exercise training on outcomes? Such a hypothesis is now stated. Was the testing of differential effects exploratory?4. Authors indicate that “Randomized sequences were generated by computer.” Can authors provide details on the method, software, or website used for randomization?5. Authors indicate that participants were excluded if they experienced depression, psychosis, cognitive impairment, etc. How were these assessed?6. Authors make use of 6 different acronyms in the abstract, which may make it more difficult to read, particularly for individuals outside this immediate field. When possible, consider spelling things out to increase ease of readability.P<.000” to “P<.001”7. Please change all instances of “8. There are some typos throughout the manuscript, please correct those .Thank you for revising the manuscript. The authors have addressed my concerns.


Transparency Needed for Economic Analyses of PA Programs Dear Editor, I am writing in response to the article Pharmacoeconomic Modeling of Prior-Authorization Intervention for COX-2 Specific Inhibitors in a 3-Tier Copay Plan in the July/August 2003 issue of the Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy. 1 While the authors are to be commended for using an economic analysis to assess the impact of a prior-authorization (PA) program, I have some objections with the paper that I wish to express. My primary objection addresses the lack of transparency in methods used.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Figs. 2C and 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes, several of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, prior to its submission to


Values were obtained on the test stand with an innovative deflector built into the distributor head at three angles of inclination . Statistical analyses revealed a significant effect of airflow velocity and deflector angle, which corrects the deviation from the vertical plane of the distributor head, on the uniformity of seed sowing. In addition, regression equations were determined to predict the quality of the seed sowing process. The developed and manufactured innovative distributor head with a deflector that tilts in two planes, designed to improve the distribution evenness of the air stream transporting seed to individual coulters in pneumatic seed drills, received a positive review. The use of a deflector with automatic control of its position angle, correcting the deviation of the distributor head from a vertical plane in pneumatic seed drills improves the uniformity of seeding. Therefore, it is reasonable to use this solution for new pneumatic seed drills and those in use on soils with different relief (undulating surface). Moreover, the solution fits in with modern agricultural manufacturing in accordance with the ideas of precision agriculture.This paper presents an innovative solution for a distributor head equipped with a deflector (controlled plate)—intended to change the tilt angle  of the pneumatic seed drill distributor head cover. We compared two qualitative parameters of seed sowing, coefficient of variation and coefficient of lateral unevenness of seed sowing ( Distribution of the main seed stream to the individual seed conduits takes place in a separation device, called a distributor head. The head should be designed to divide the main seed stream into equal unit streams, which travel to the rows in the soil through seed tubes and coulters. The distribution principle of the heads is based on the vortex interaction of the turbulent air stream with the seed and the resulting stochastic distribution of the seed4, have disadvantages. The most important of them is low lateral sowing evenness6, especially in terrain with varied terrain (hills)1.Pneumatic seed drills, despite their numerous advantages including high efficiency, maneuverability, easy and fast loading of seed8. There are also studies which prove that uniform distribution of seeds in the soil has a positive effect on the crop quantity and quality by improving utilization of sun rays and water by growing plants9. Moreover, intraspecific competition is reduced as plants have a similar life space. Authors of these studies use various indicators, test procedures11 and methods of seed uniformity assessment14 to evaluate the process of machine seeding. Pippig has analyzed the influence of technical parameters of pneumatic seeding system units and found that the diffuser tube length should be about 350 mm to maintain acceptable uniformity of seeding15. Subsequent studies indicate the distribution of air flow velocities at the outlet of the seed (pneumatic) tube, which is necessary to validate the mathematical model of two-phase flow mechanics in pneumatic seed drill systems5, and proposes minimum seed transport velocities16. From the analysis of the literature, it appears that the uniformity of seed distribution is also influenced, though minimally (2°–3°), by inclination of the seed-air stream distributing head17. There is also research whose results are mathematical models describing evenness of the seed distribution in the distributor head18. Other researchers work on improving or developing new sowing system designs5 as well as using electronic optical systems to control the sowing process19. Xiaolong et al.20 designed and tested a new pneumatic precision centralized seed dispenser with internal seed loading, which sows six rows simultaneously. The authors explored the influence of design and operational parameters on sowing evenness. Karayel et al.21 developed a new helicoidal seed tube where falling seeds move along a seed spiral which improves seed distribution uniformity. The tests were conducted for two species of wheat and barley grains. The values of variability coefficient for the grain species changed from the level of 118.4% and 139.5% to the level of 77.2% and 70.6%21, respectively. In another study the authors developed and tested in field conditions a contactless, self-priming system for wheat seed injection. The value of seed distribution uniformity variability coefficient was 11.3%22. Xi et al23 discussed a different approach to the issue of seed distribution uniformity improvement by proposing a seed sowing system without seed delivery tubes whose clearance is 5.0–8.8 cm. The best qualitative parameters of seed sowing were found for 7.0 cm clearance tubes—sowing accuracy was 83.84%, whereas the seed distribution uniformity variability coefficient was 14.68%. The research, however, did not consider a varied terrain (slope). Some simulation research on the seed mixture movement and the air stream coming out of the dispenser was conducted by Zhou et al.24, Xiaolong et al.25 and Bourges et al.26. That research involved distribution of the seed-air stream flow in the distributor head. Unfortunately, the authors did not investigate evenness of the dosed air stream distribution with the head tilted from the vertical—head tilt. Kumar et al. carried out research on the effect of the distributor head shape, outlet air stream velocity and sowing unit operation speed on seed distribution evenness. The authors indicated that sowing evenness is influenced by the velocity of the air stream transporting the seed, sowing rate, and the seed physical properties. From the literature analysis, it can be concluded that the research results and their scope are not conclusive and do not exhaust the subject of seed sowing evenness in machine sowing. Therefore, it may be stated that there is still a problem of even seed-air stream flow distribution, especially when sowing seeds in soils with varying terrain—especially on slopes above 10°. According to the research conducted so far28, the deviation from the vertical of a mechanical-pneumatic seed drill distributor head has a significant effect on the seed flow distribution uniformity inside its head, and the distributor head deviation from the vertical in the range of 0°–20° significantly worsens the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness, up to 14%27. Gierz Łukasz and Markowski Piotr29 achieved similar correlations for sowing oat seeds. The distributor head deviation from the vertical by an angle of 10° resulted in a 31% evenness deterioration of oat seed sowing (evenness of seed and air stream distribution in the distributor head) from a value of 10.36% at the vertical position of the distributor head to a value of 13.55% at the deviation by an angle of 10°. Yatskul et al.30 noticed a similar relationship when sowing wheat seed and tilting the distribution head by an angle from 0° to 22°.In the literature there are many papers concerning the causes of unevenness of seed sowing performed with pneumatic seed drills31.For the selected orientation, the head cover tilt in relation to the diffusion tube vertical axis, can result in more seed being carried in that direction, i.e. asymmetrical seed-air stream distribution. Distributor heads of commonly used pneumatic drills usually are not equipped with seed direction control, and it is not possible to change the seed reflection angle. Another disadvantage of assessing the machine sowing quality noted by the authors is the use of several methods (field and laboratory) to estimate the seed sowing evenness, which makes it difficult and sometimes even impossible to compare the results presented in the respective articles. Therefore, it is not always possible to make an unambiguous evaluation of the influence of the sowing unit individual design and operational factors on the seed sowing evenness. It needs, however, to be noted that regulations included in ISO (7256-1:1984) 28 norm are helpful for unification of methods used for evaluation of seed sowing quality and make it possible to compare the results of variability coefficient (CV) for different grain speciesδ.The authors present evaluation of lateral seed distribution evenness with a pneumatic seed drill using an innovative method of correcting the setting of the distributor head cover of the pneumatic sowing system by means of a controlled plate (deflector), which makes it possible to control the distribution of the seed-air stream by changing the seed reflection angle. To be able to compare the obtained results with those presented in the literature, two coefficients were used to assess the quality of seed sowing—coefficient of variation CV and coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness 28. The deflector's design allows it to be tilted in two planes—in two perpendicular axes. The deflector tilt angle from the distributor head parallel plane is controlled by three screws numbered 2, 3, 4  The main fan (8) is connected to the dosing unit with injector (1) via airflow supply conduit (9).The laboratory test bench for evaluating the quality of seed sowing Fig.  was consThe laboratory test bench is also equipped with a unit for automatic weighing of the quantity of seed sown, a 16-chamber seed collection box and a computer with software for data collection and calculation of the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness.In this study, oat seed Lion with a thousand-seed weight of 32.2 g ± 0.62 and moisture content of 9.9% was used. The research material came from Main Seed Warehouse Top Farms Seeds, Production Plant in Runów located in Greater Poland Province. Based on the announcement of the Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland on the announcement of the uniform text of the Act on the legal protection of plant varieties of January 22, 2021  and the breeder's declaration that the indicated variety: Lion (oat) is law protected by the breeder, the authors have received this permission. The breeder agrees to obtain the above-mentioned plant material, which complies with the national guidelines from Main Seed Warehouse Top Farms Seeds, Production Plant in Runów located in Greater Poland Province. The authors, with the breeder's consent, may use its plant material only for the purposes of scientific and research activities, including carrying out tests of e.g. sowing simulation on a laboratory stand with an innovative distributor head with a deflector. Seeds were sown at a constant rate of 250 kg/ha.Once the laboratory experiment (one measuring cycle) is completed on the designed test rig, the 16 chambers of seed collecting box (7) are opened sequentially and their contents are weighed and returned in a closed circuit to seed box (12).Sliders are installed in the chamber bottoms of collection box (7) and are opened and closed by a cam mechanism driven by toothed belt through servomotor (23). A special program for the laboratory rig written in Embarcadero's RAD Delphi 2010 environment controls the servomotor (23), the main fan supply motor (21), suction fan (18), and dispenser drive motor (28).35. The whole measurement cycle of the sown seed weight is completely automated and after weighing the seed in all sixteen chambers of the collection box, a test report is generated, and the results are stored in .txt files.Collector pipe is located along the sixteen-chamber box, into which the seeds enter when the sliders are opened. The seeds then are transported by air stream through the suction conduit from the collector pipe to the separating cyclone located above seed box (12). The conical bottom of separation cyclone (15) is closed from below by flap (17). It relies on three tensometric sensors, which measure separately the weight of seeds from each chamber in collection box (7) with an accuracy of ± 0.005 kg. Cyclone flap (17) is closed by the vacuum in the system with a force of approx. 500 N during the seed transport from collection box (7), then after suction blower (18) is switched off, the conical bottom of the cyclone drops onto the strain gauges. Cyclone flap (17) is locked electromagnetically by the control systemRead the test parameters written into the control system interface: airflow rate, sowing time;Turn on the main fan motor and wait for its speed to stabilize;Make sure that the cam mechanism is before chamber 1;Regulate the fan shaft speed so that the assumed airflow speed is achieved at the inlet of the seed dosing unit;Start the sowing (dosing) unit and set the desired speed of the sowing (dosing) shaft;Wait 5 s. for the sowing conditions to be established;Direct the seed into the distribution head with the innovative deflector;Keep sowing for a set time—according to the test plan, about 10–600 s.Switch off the sowing unit drive and after 5 s switch on the main fan motor;Start the suction fan;Check the vacuum value in the batch measuring system cyclone;Open another collection box slider;Wait 30 s;Turn off the suction fan;Read the weight of the seed sown from a tensiometer weight scale measuring the weight of seed batch;Read the weight of all the seed from the tensiometer weight of the seed box;Open the flap that closes the seed outlet in the cyclone;If the extreme position of cam mechanism carriage is reached, return to chamber no.1;Compile the measurement results and save them in a database.The laboratory test bench with the innovative deflector is equipped with a control system, in which the measurement cycle is programmed according to the following scheme:35. The measuring interface is equipped with a terminal block, where serial transmission conduits (USB2), four digital outputs (DO0…DO3) and six analogue inputs (AI0…AI6) are used to control the device  consists of inputting fixed parameter values in accordance with the test plan after the main dialogue form appears i.e. sowing time. The sowing speed is read from working speed sensor (9) and has also been presumed to be constant. The length of the measuring distance is determined by the sowing time and working speed (sowing rate) specified in the test plan. Measurement procedure 2  involves cyclic opening of the individual box chambers, weight measurement and discharge into the seed box, and the recording of the measured values of the seed weight in the program memory to create a report.The software uses a proprietary graphics and mathematics library, graphics_v3, which complement the control systemThere were three repetitions of the experiment for all combinations of variable parameters according to the algorithm shown in Fig. sowing rate of 250 kg/ha;sowing speed 8 km/h;sowing time 10 min.Constant:air velocity in three ranges: 12.22 m/s, 14.44 m/s, 16.66 m/s;distribution head tilt: 0°, 5°, 10°;deflector tilt: 0°, 5°, 10°.Variables:CV (%);coefficient of variation δ (%).coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness Actual parameters:For the purposes of this study, the following parameters were adopted:δ36 is frequently determined as variability coefficient (CV)37, defined as a ratio of square deviation of average distance between seeds sown in particular rows to the average distance determined for the whole seed drill. This indicator can be also determined as a ratio of square deviation of the seed average weight falling on a measurement distance in individual rows to an average weight for the whole seed drill. In turn, an indicator of lateral unevenness of seed sowing is defined as a ratio of square average deviation in a row to average deviation in a row38. The indicator of lateral seed sowing unevenness is commonly defined for point seed drills38.The quality of sowing (seed distribution evenness) is evaluated based on the values of transverse and lateral unevenness of seed sowing. The indicator of transverse seed sowing δ were applied. Coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated from relation  and coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness relation , accordiδ (%) was determined from Eq. . qsr—average weight of oat seed sown in the ith container (kg), ∆qsr—the average deviation in weight of seed sown into seed containers (kg).The coefficient value of lateral seed sowing unevenness from Eq. , accordi39.The air velocity was set in 3 ranges: 12.22 m/s, 14.44 m/s, 16.66 m/s due to the oats seed critical velocity of 8.03 m/s0: the correlation coefficients between the variables are equal to zero. When the values of the correlation coefficients showed a strong relationship between the independent variables and the dependent ones, rectilinear regression equations were determined at a further stage to describe the nature of the relationship. Fifth-degree curvilinear, multiple, multivariate polynomial, second-degree polynomial and power equations were tested as well, followed by regression analysis with a posteriori elimination and stepwise selection procedures to determine the form of the regression equation describing the most accurate fit of the empirical data to the model. Regression function fit assessment was determined, and description quality analyses were performed by removing irrelevant variables from the equations. The calculated value of the F-Snedecor statistic and the probability of exceeding it, the multiple correlation coefficient, the value of the determination coefficient, the standard deviation of the residuals and the coefficient of random variation were used as criteria for assessing the model fit to the empirical data. The rule that functional relationships should occur in simple mathematical forms was also considered for determining the final form of the function. A statistical analysis was performed using the Statistica 13 PL statistical software package. The significance level in the analysis and inference was set at p = 0.05.Measurement results were statistically analyzed. A correlation analysis was conducted to determine the strength and nature of the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent ones. The following null hypothesis was verified Hδ) at three values of angles  of distributor head tilt from the vertical and deflector tilt from the distributor head.During the experiment, the seed weight distribution to each coulter was determined in the distributor head and the values of seed sowing quality coefficients were calculated, i.e. the coefficient of variation (CV) and coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness  and the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness (δ = 24.42%) occurred for the airflow velocity of 14.4 m/s, the distributor head angle of 5° from the vertical and the deflector angle from the distributor head of 5°—a statistically significant difference at α = 0.05 (Tables δ) are close to the calculated values of these quality coefficients when the distribution head is vertical. An analysis of results also shows that an increase in air velocity in the pneumatic seed transport system to 16.6 m/s results in a deterioration of seed sowing quality, regardless of the applied combination of distribution head and deflector tilt angles.Convergence can also be found between the results of the coefficient values of the seed sowing unevenness within the velocity increase range from 12.2 to 14.4 m/s with the results reported in the following articles5 Tables . The obt42, can negatively affect the obtained crop yield. It is, therefore, reasonable to use a deflector to improve the quality of sowing with a pneumatic seed drill, especially when sowing in fields with an angle of terrain greater than 5° —Eq. v) in the pneumatic seed transport system, distribution head tilt from the vertical (hβ) and the angle of the deflector in relation to the distributor head (dα).Based on the obtained results, regression equations were derived with a posteriori elimination procedure and stepwise selection of insignificant variables and polynomial degree, describing the functional dependence of seed sowing quality, i.e. coefficient of sowing variation (CV)—Eq. 2) of the equations obtained was 0.94 and 0.91 respectively. These high values of the determination coefficient indicate a good match of the developed models with the empirical data, which allows prediction of the sowing process quality depending on the velocity of air stream (v) in the pneumatic seed transport system, distribution head tilt angle from the vertical (hβ) and the deflector tilt angle relative to distribution head (dα).Quadratic equations of seed sowing quality obtained from regression analysis are characterized by a very good model match with empirical data. The values of the coefficient of determination (Rδ)—Eq. Graphical representation of quadratic equations describing the quality of seed sowing (coefficient of sowing variation (CV)—Eq. The experiment also determined the distribution of seed weight in the distribution head for individual coulters. The average seed weight for one coulter at airflow velocity of 12.2 m/s varied from 0.99 kg ± 0.012 kg to 1.12 kg ± 0.021 kg, depending on the distribution head and deflector angles. With an airflow velocity of 14.4 m/s, the mass of seed sown per coulter varied from 1.00 kg ± 0.018 kg to 1.19 kg ± 0.027 kg. In the third case, highest air flow velocity in the pneumatic system of 16.6 m/s, the average weight of seed directed to individual coulters varied from 1.00 kg ± 0.021 kg to 1.12 kg ± 0.032 kg (Table dα) and tilt angle of the seed-air stream distributor head (hβ) along with the calculated values of the seed quality coefficients, i.e. coefficient of sowing variation (CV) and the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness (δ) and air stream velocity 14.4 m/s—at which the highest seed sowing evenness .Figures δ (33.61% and 29.61% respectively), i.e. the most uneven seed sowing was observed with a distribution head angle of 10° from the vertical and a deflector angle of 0°   from 0° to 10°, with a distribution head angle of 10° from the vertical  obtained at a deflector angle of 5° and a distribution head angle of 5° from the vertical  were 25.73% and 21.51%, respectively.The highest CV and or) Fig. . Deflectcal Fig.  improvedcal Fig. . The CV The developed and manufactured innovative distributor head with a deflector that tilts in two planes, designed to improve the distribution evenness of the air stream transporting seed to individual coulters in pneumatic seed drills, provided positive results in this experiment.Changing the deflector tilt angle significantly affects the value of the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness and can compensate for the effect of the seed drill tilt and the supply conduit spreader curvature. Change in the distributor head angle of tilt from the vertical position (0°) by 5° and 10°, accompanied with appropriate change in the deflector angle by the above given angles, that is, 5° and 10° caused reduction in the value of the sowing lateral unevenness indicator from about 20% up to above 40%, depending on the working speed and indicator applied.δ) was obtained for air velocity of 14.4 m/s. Changing the air velocity from 14.4 to 12.2 m/s or 16.6 m/s significantly worsened the seed distribution evenness in the distributor head—increase in the value of indicators of seed sowing lateral unevenness within the range from about 5% to about 18%.The research result analysis shows that the air stream velocity transporting the seed has a significant influence on the uniformity of air stream distribution in the distributor head. The lowest value of the seed sowing quality coefficient, i.e. coefficient of sowing variation (CV) and the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness (δ), is characterized by a high percentage of explained variability . This definitely confirms usefulness of the equations for prediction of the seed sowing process quality as a function of the airflow stream velocity (v) in the pneumatic seed transport system, the deviation of the distributor head from the vertical (hβ) and the deflector tilt angle relative to the distributor head (dα).The second-degree equations of seed sowing quality determined from a multiple regression analysis, i.e. coefficient of sowing variation (CV) and the coefficient of lateral seed sowing unevenness (43 or by incremental manufacturing44. These topics may be the subject of further research.The research results indicate that it is reasonable to improve the quality of sowing with pneumatic seed drills, especially when sowing in areas with an over 5° inclination. This requires continuous measurement of the asymmetry coefficient of the seed stream distribution in the head seed distributor and the use of a system for automatic adjustment of the deflector angle that can be performed by the increasingly used 3D printing method


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that one of the tumor images shown in Fig. 4A was strikingly similar to a tumor image appearing in a pair of other articles that had been written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere prior to its submission to


Following the publication of this article , concernThe University of California, Davis confirmed that author DPW admitted to manipulation of the data underlying the results presented in Fig 2.PLOS Genetics Editors issue this Expression of Concern to notify readers of the above issues.The authors are working with PLOS to try and address these issues. Meanwhile, the


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


There was an error in the original publication . We usedTherefore, two minor modifications have been made:Section 2.2. Outcomes, last paragraph:A correction has been made to “Because the pre-determined chest compression depth target was not reached during this study, an additional chest compression depth outcome considering an arbitrary target (≥3 cm) based on the mean compression’s depth rather than the guidelines was added post hoc.”Section 4. Discussion, paragraph number 3:A correction has been made to “The cut-off used to determine whether chest compression depth was adequate was decided according to the manikin’s size. Since the initial analysis showed that compression depth was consistently shallower than expected, a supplementary secondary outcome was added post hoc using an arbitrary target of ≥3 cm (based on the mean compressions’ depth) to define adequate compression depth. No significant difference was found depending on the guidelines used, but the issue of manikin fidelity should nevertheless be considered. Indeed, high-fidelity simulations have been shown to improve compression quality [28], and manikins’ limitations should be clearly acknowledged by their manufacturers, who should strive to increase the fidelity of their simulation materials.”In the original publication , there wThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The above article, published online on 5 December 2022, on Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been withdrawn by agreement between the authors, The American Association of Physicists in Medicine and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. The withdrawal has been agreed due to a technical error at the publisher that caused the article to be mistakenly published online although publication had been canceled because the authors did not approve their proof. The publisher regrets the error. Withdrawal: Erli Chen, Michael D. Mills, John A. Antolak, Ivan M. Buzurovic, William Dezarn, Farhana R. Khan, Charles Kirby, Brent Parker, Todd Pawlicki, Zhong Su, Chrisine M. Swanson, Russell B. Tarver, Bruce Tomadsen, Nicholai E. Wingreen, Susan White, Ming Yang, Sumin Zhou, “The current state, future supply and demand of therapy physicists ‐ A special report of the 2020 AAPM therapy physicist workforce survey results,” Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics,


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


Retraction Note: World J Surg Oncol 21, 217 (2023)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03114-6The authors have retracted this article because they found that the presented data had been fabricated.All authors agree to this retraction.


The authors regret that the following funding information was omitted in the original manuscript:“This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement GrapheneCore3 – 881603.”The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


The journal retracts the 15 March 2017 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures, with areas of image duplication and manipulation in Figures 1B, 3A. Following a request for raw data, further issues were identified in Figures 5A, B, H. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. As a result, the data and conclusions of the article have been deemed unreliable and the article has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The corresponding author Carmela Matrone did not agree to the retraction. Helle Rasmussen agreed to the retraction. The remaining authors did not respond to our correspondence.


Correction: Trials 24, 174 (2023)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07188-1The original publication of this article  containeIncorrectThis project has received funding from European Social Fund (project No: 01.2.2-LMT-K-718-03-0072) under grant agreement with the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT).CorrectThe project has received funding from European Regional Development Fund (project No: 01.2.2-LMT-K-718-03-0072) under a grant agreement with the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT)


Correction: Cell Biosci (2019) 9:34 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-019-0296-9The position of DAPI panels in Fig. 4g was reversed. The authors would like to provide a revised Fig. 4g with reorganized DAPI panels.The Emerin blot of Fig. 2c was the unpublished data from the same Co-IP experiment published in Wang et al. . The autIn the original version of the article, the authors wish to make the following corrections:The correct version of figures is given in this correction.


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 38, 344 (2019)10.1186/s13046-019-1332-7The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding highly similar features in the published images. Specifically:• Fig. 2f Invasion si-NC and MACC1-AS1 images appear to contain some highly similar areas;• Fig. 2f Invasion si-MACC1-AS1 and pWPXL images appear to contain an overlapping area;• Fig. 5a appears to contain some duplicated patterns within each image.Additionally, Fig. 3a appears highly similar to Fig. 3e in , and FigFurther checks by the publisher have also found that there appear to be duplicated western blot bands and background features in Fig. 3a, signs of erased bands in Fig. 3e, and background irregularities in Fig. 6b and c. In addition, a number of images in Fig. 2f appear highly similar to those in Fig. S1a and c in [The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Jiang Jianshuai has stated on behalf of all co-authors that they agree to this retraction.


Biol Pharm Bull 35: 1574-1580, 2012]. Finally, it was pointed out that some of the western blot images presented in Fig. 4B in the above paper had also apparently been featured in different formats in two other publications that also contained several of the same authors.Following the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to our attention that a number of apparent anomalies existed with the data presented in the above paper. First, there appeared to be strikingly similar and duplicated patternings of the cells within the cellular images featured in Fig. 2, images 3 and 4 . Secondly, certain of the data panels shown in Fig. 4 appeared to be strikingly similar to data shown in Fig. 4 in a previously published paper, which featured several of the same authors [Lin X, Liu X, Huang Q, Zhang S, Zheng L, Wei L, He M, Jiao Y, Huang J, Fu S Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine has been able to verify the claims made by the interested reader; therefore, in view of the number of potential anomalies that have been identified and owing to a lack of overall confidence in the presented data, the Editorial Board have decided to retract the above paper from the publication. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused.Following an internal enquiry, the Editor of


We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct. There is extensive literature highlighting the inequalities experienced by female researchers throughout their academic careers -3. By coIn this study, we compared the representation of female first and last authors in retracted articles and all publications by examining 134 medical journals.publications, we used the results of Hart and Perlis [retractions, we retrieved all PubMed articles published in these journals between January 2003 and December 2022 that were retracted. We evaluated the 2003-2022 period to have a sufficiently large sample size. We retrieved the reason(s) for retraction using the Retraction Watch database and grouped the 102 reasons into 4 main reasons: scientific misconduct only, error(s) only, scientific misconduct and error(s), and reason not related to the author(s). We used the Gender API software to determine first and last authors’ gender [d Perlis , which c’ gender  and, if We computed the proportion of retractions and stratified the results by gender and discipline. To exclude ambiguous names that could skew the gender distribution, we repeated the analyses with retractions whose authors’ gender was determined with >60% or >70% accuracy ,3. Data Since this study did not involve the collection of personal health-related data, it did not require ethical review, according to current Swiss law.After excluding anonymous retracted articles and those with first names as initials, gender could be determined for 398 first authors and 395 last authors. Women were first or last authors of 100 (25.1%) and 55 (13.9%) retractions, respectively, while their proportion as first or last authors of all publications was 41.3% and 26.1% in 2008 and 45.4% and 33.4% in 2017, respectively.The proportion of female first and last authors of all publications was higher in 2017 than in 2008 for all 10 disciplines. The proportion of women was lower for retractions compared to all publications for all 10 disciplines for first authors and 7 disciplines for last authors.As shown in The results were similar when using subsamples. For example, the proportion of female first and last authors of retractions was 24.3% (93/383) and 13.8% (53/383), respectively, when the authors’ gender was determined with an accuracy of >60%. It was 24.6% (90/366) and 14% (53/379), respectively, when accuracy was >70%.We found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.Compared with the study by Pinho-Gomes et al , the proRetractions for misconduct can be seen as proxies for scientific integrity, and our results suggest that it varies with gender. Identifying the underlying reasons for these gender disparities is challenging. No studies had directly tackled this topic, making it difficult to draw conclusive findings. Biological, social, and cultural factors can interact in a complex way and contribute to the more pronounced competitive tendencies of men versus women, which can be a possible risk factor for misconduct . AlternaOur study has two main limitations. Gender was determined using Gender API and a manual search instead of self-identification. We dichotomized gender into female and male, which did not allow us to assess nonbinary identity.


Retraction Note: Journal of Nanobiotechnology (2020) 18:7110.1186/s12951-020-00626-1The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the images presented in the figures. Specifically:Figure 8a western blots appear to have vertical breaks in the backgrounds.Figure 12 Liver CUR and RPCNP-CUR images contain a highly similar area (rotated).The authors have stated that some lanes have been removed from the western blots to exclude irrelevant samples, and that an incorrect image was used in Fig. 12 by mistake. However, the authors have been unable to provide the underlying raw data upon request. The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.Chunhong Gao and Yang Yang have not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the publisher about this retraction.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe following panels appear similar:The Fig. 4A HepG2 Tubulin and MCF Tubulin panels.The Fig. 7A HepG2 Tubulin and MCF Tubulin panels.Lanes 1–4 of the Fig. 1D Tubulin panel of this study .The Fig. 4A MCF p-AKT panel of this study , lanes 3The Fig. 4A MCF7 ERK panel of this study  and laneLanes 1–3 of the Fig. 5A MCF7 p-JAK2 of this study [Lanes 1–2 of the Fig. 6A MCF7 Input STAT3 panel of this study [The Fig. 6B MCF7 Lysate p-STAT3 panel of this study  and laneLanes 2–4 of the Fig. 6B HepG2 Lysate p-STAT3 panel of this study  and the The Fig. 6B MCF7 STAT3 panel of this study  and the The Fig. 6B HepG2 Lysate APPL1 panel of this study .Lanes 2–5 of the Fig. 7A HepG2 p-STAT3 panel of this study  and the Lanes 1–3 of the Fig. 7A MCF7 p-AKT panel of this study [Lanes 1–4 of the Fig. 7A MCF7 AKT panel of this study .The corresponding author commented that some western blot images were misused in this article  and requPLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the CW agreed with the retraction. YD, YC, BW, LW, YZ, DZ, XC, and ML either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Cell Death and Disease 10.1038/cddis.2017.356, published online 17 August 2017Retraction to: In Fig. 2E and F, the NC images appear to contain overlap.There appear to be a number of overlapping images in Figs. 3A-D and 6E and F.L02 and SMMC-7721 cell lines have been reported to be contaminated with HeLa and are therefore unsuitable for liver cancer research.HepG2 cells have been reported to be unsuitable as a model of hepatocellular carcinoma.The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding overlap in the migration and invasion assay images presented in the figures, as well as the cell lines used in the study. Specifically:The authors have checked the original data and stated that the image errors occurred due to incorrect data storage. The Editors and authors therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.Chao Yang has stated on behalf of all authors that they agree to this retraction.


Following the publication of this article , concern○ Lanes 2–5 of the Fig 7F IB:IKKα panel and lanes 1–4 of the Fig 7J IB: STAT3 panel when flipped vertically.○ Lanes 1–3 of the Fig 2A IB:α-tubulin panel of this study [Tyr1007/8 panel of this study [Thr172 panel of [○ Lanes 2–4 of the Fig 2F IB: pJak2○ Lanes 1–4 of the Fig 3H IB:α-tubulin panel of this study [○ Lanes 2–5 of the Fig 6B IB:α-tubulin panel of this study  and the ○ The Fig 8G IB: α-tubulin panel of this study  and the ○ The Fig 8H IB: α-tubulin panel of this study  and the The following western blot panels appear similar:○ The left half of the top DAPI panel, and the right half of the middle DAPI panel.○ The left half of the top IL-6R panel, and the right half of the middle IL-6R panel panel.○ The left half of the IKKβ panel, and the right half of the PERK panel.○ The left half of the top Merge panel, and the right half of the middle Merge panel.The following Fig 4E confocal microscopy panels appear to partially overlap:The corresponding author commented that the original underlying data are no longer available due to the time since the experiments were conducted. In the absence of the underlying data, the issues with this article cannot be resolved.PLOS Biology Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the The Fig 2F IB: pJak2Tyr1007/8 panel reports material from , publishERR, GZR, DG, AGO, MJAS, and JBCC agreed with the retraction. ERR, GZR, DG, MJAS, and AGO stand by the article’s findings and apologize for the issues with the article. MBF, DEC, JRP, JM, CTdS, JCM, POP, RMM, TMA, HFC, and LAV either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/srep09787, published online 10 April 2015Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.1, which reports a different experiment by different authors. When asked by the Editors, the Authors were not able to provide the raw data and stated that the images in Figure 3(b) were obtained through a third party hired to perform some of the experiments for this study. Given the concerns about the veracity of the data, the Editors no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented in this Article.After the publication, the first author reached out to the Editors to point out that that the phase contrast microscopy image in Figure 3(b) appears to replicate panels that originally appeared in Figure 2(b) ofAll Authors agree to this retraction.


Miao, J., Liu, J., Niu, J., Zhang, Y., Shen, W., Luo, C., Liu, Y., Li, C., Li, H., Yang, P., Liu, Y., Hou, F.F., Zhou, L.Wnt/β‐catenin/RAS signaling mediates age‐related renal fibrosis and is associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Aging Cell.2019;18(5):e13004. 10.1111/acel.13004.31318148In the above published article, the authors mistakenly placed a duplicated image of PGC‐1α staining for the CTL and D‐gal/Klotho groups in Figure 5b. The corrected version of Figure 5b now contains the correct PGC‐1α staining images, and it is shown below.The authors would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused.


In “Uncovering Important Drivers of the Increase in the Use of Virtual Care Technologies in Nursing Care: Quantitative Analysis From the 2020 National Survey of Canadian Nurses” :e33586) the authors noted one correction.In the published manuscript, the Acknowledgments read as follows:The authors would like to extend their acknowledgments to the Performance Analytics team at Canada Health Infoway for reviewing this manuscript before submission.The publication costs for this article have been covered by Canada Health Infoway Inc, a non-profit corporation funded by the Government of Canada.They have now been changed to:The authors would like to extend their acknowledgments to the Performance Analytics team at Canada Health Infoway for reviewing this manuscript before submission.The authors would like to thank the following organizations and individuals who significantly contributed to the design, implementation, distribution, dissemination, and analysis of the results of the 2020 National Survey of Canadian Nurses. The data and results from this survey served as the main source for their study: The Canadian Nurses Association (CNA); The Canadian Nursing Informatics Association (CNIA); L’Association Québécoise des infirmières et infirmiers en systèmes et technologies de l’information (AQIISTI); L’Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers d Québec (OIIQ); Glynda Rees, RN, MSN, President, Canadian Nursing Informatics Association, Faculty, BCIT School of Nursing; Éric Maillet, RN, PhD, Assistant Professor at the School of Nursing and Director of Health Informatics Programs at the University of Sherbrooke; Leanne M. Currie, RN, PhD, Associate Professor at University of British Columbia School of Nursing; Peggy White, former CNIA president; and Josette Roussel, RN, MSc (Nursing), MEd, former Executive Advisor at the Canadian Nurses Association.The publication costs for this article have been covered by Canada Health Infoway Inc, a non-profit corporation funded by the Government of Canada.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on October 13, 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.


Retraction Note: BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology (2022) 23:410.1186/s40360-021-00546-2The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding image similarities and irregular features in the presented figures. Specifically:Fig. 2d appears to contain highly similar areas, and an unusual diagonal artifact that appears to duplicate nearby features of the image.Fig. 2e appears to contain highly similar areas within the image.Fig. 3a and b appear to overlap.Fig. 5a and b appear highly similar, with some minor differences.Fig. 8b appears to contain highly similar areas within image.Fig. 10a appears to contain unusual features in the image.The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Noha Esmael Ebrahem, Eman S. Shaltout, Wael M. A. Abd El-Ghani, Noha A. Rashed, Asmaa M. Hasan, Omnia I. Ismail, Ahmed Mohamed Mohamed Mahmoud and Nora Z. Abdellah do not agree to this retraction. Diab F. Hetta and Lobna A. Abdelzaher has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


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


There was an error in Equation 1) in the original publication . Furthermore, most events occur in the solid states, such as CT and CC transport, and, therefore, JSC must also strongly depend on their molecular morphology [5]. Nevertheless, this spectral extension is achieved by using noble NFA materials coupled with suitable polymers as a bulk heterojunction (BHJ) active layer. The benefits of NFA systems are clearly recognized by comparing with solar cells that comprise fullerene derivatives and, for instance, narrow bandgap polymers [6] or polythiophene derivatives [7].”“Recently, non-fullerene type acceptors (NFA) have gathered remarkable attention owing to the rapid increase in their photovoltaic power conversion efficiency (PCE) [1–3]. One of the most important reasons for the impressive PCE improvement must be the extended absorption spectral range, which can provide higher short circuit current densities (JThe 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.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/srep19261, published online 14 January 2016Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this article.Initial concerns were raised about the fact that the tumours in Fig. 6A appear to have been pasted into the image individually, as well as a partial overlap between 5367 and 5367-Vector in Fig. 6C.Additionally, in Fig. 5A, the mock and vector panels for t24 appear to be very similar. The journal requested raw data and evidence of ethics approval, however the information provided by the Authors was not satisfactory. As a result, the Editors lost confidence in the integrity of this article’s findings.Zhe Zhang disagrees with this retraction. Guojun Zhang, Chuize Kong, Bo Zhan, Xiao Dong and Xiaojun Man did not respond to the correspondence about this retraction.


Similarly, there was a gene-specific pattern when comparing PBMC DNA and PL – partial compartmentalisation in env was observed for five of six participants and in gag for only three of nine participants.When comparing the LN DNA and PL compartments, a gene-specific pattern was observed - partial compartmentalisation was observed in The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


In “Exploring an Innovative Care Model and Telemonitoring for the Management of Patients with Complex Chronic Needs: Qualitative Description Study” :e15691), the authors made one addition.An Acknowledgments section has been added that reads as follows:This research was made possible by the funding support from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Personalized Health Catalyst Grant (Funding Reference Number 155443).The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on October 25, 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.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe P21 western blot panel in Fig 4A appears to have no detectable signal or background, nor does the panel present a positive control to confirm a successful blot.The Ad5/F35-siAPE1 panel in Fig 8A appears to partially overlap with the Ad5/F35-siAPE1+IR panel in Fig 8a and the Ad5/F35-siAPE1+IR panel in Fig 9a despite representing different experimental conditions.The Ad5/F35-siAPE1 panel in Fig 9A appears to partially overlap with the Ad5/F35-EGFP+IR panel when rotated despite representing different experimental conditions.The authors did not provide a response to the concern regarding the P21 western blot in Fig 4A nor was any underlying data provided to resolve this issue.The authors stated that the concerns related to Figs 8 and 9 were unintentional errors made during preparation of the figures but stated they were unable to source the original underlying data for both figures. The PLOS Editors remain concerned about the reliability of these figures.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability and validity of these data, the All authors either did not respond directly to the final editorial decision or could not be reached.


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


The last two authors, Justine I. Davies and Lisa R. Hirschhorn, should be noted as joint senior authors of this work.


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


In addition, certain of the caspase-8 data shown in Fig. 1D on p. 3825 and in Fig. 2B appeared strikingly to be similar, again with the apparent horizontal flipping of the bands shown in adjacent lanes within Fig. 1D itself.Oncology Letters has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal on account of a lack of confidence in the presented data. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.After having conducted an independent investigation of these figures in the Editorial Office, the Editor of


Sergei Krivonogov was not included as an author in the original publication . The corAuthor Contributions: Conceptualization S.K., A.S. and A.M.; methodology, A.M. and A.S.; software, D.Z.; validation, D.Z., A.M. and A.S.; formal analysis, A.S.; investigation, A.M. and D.Z.; resources, S.K. and A.M.; data curation, D.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Z., A.S. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, S.K., D.Z. and A.S.; visualization, D.Z. and A.M.; supervision, S.K. and A.S.; project administration, S.K.; funding acquisition, S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.In the published publication , there wIn the original publication , the funFunding: This research was funded by RFBR-NSFC grant 21-55-53037 and state assignments from The Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (#AAAA-A16-11611091001 and 0330-2016-0011) and performed using the equipment of the Core Facilities Center of IPCE RAS (CKP FMI IPCE RAS) and the Analytical Center for Multi-element and Isotope Studies of the V.S. Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy (Novosibirsk). Work was done on state assignment of V.S. Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences, Project N 122041400193-7.We changed the acknowledgements accordingly:Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to Rysbek Satylkanov, of the Tien Shan High Mountain Scientific Centre National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic, for hosting our field work. We thank Nadezhda Popova and Denis Sobolev for their laboratory assistance.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.


Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the validity of the data in the article. The authors failed to provide the raw data and a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies. Given the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article. This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Oncology.The authors did not agree with the retraction.


Moreover, various of the western blotting data shown in these figures were strikingly similar to data that had already been published in different form in other articles written by (largely) different authors at different research institutes.Molecular Medicine Reports, and due to the number of apparent duplications of strikingly similar data between Figs. 3 and 4, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


In the original publication , specifiWe also highlighted the changes in Section 2.9. In Vivo Assessment, paragraph 1, lines 2–4, as well as in the Institutional Review Board Statement, with the following text.“The in vivo experiment was performed after receiving the approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (ARC-IACUC), Cairo, Egypt (protocol number: ARC-AH-22-29)”Institutional Review Board Statement: The in vivo experiment was performed after receiving the approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use committee (ARC-IACUC), Cairo, Egypt (Protocol number: ARC-AH-22-29) that complies with the United Kingdom Animals Scientific Procedures Act, 1986, and the European Union directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments, as well as the ARRIVE guidelines.”“The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and the state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Readers have raised concerns about quantitative results published in bar graphs in Figs 2–3, S3-S7, and S9 of this article , 2. SpecAlso, in Figs 2A, 2B, 2C, S3A, S3B, S3C, S3D, S5B, S5C, and S6B, some data annotations  on the graphs do not agree with bars’ alignment with values on the Y axis. The authors stated that the data annotations within the graphs  provide the correct results.6 for stained population size and the Y axis for Fig S5C should be labelled, ‘Absolute number of dead cells (x 106)’.In addition, in Fig S5C, the data values on top of the bars are tenfold higher than the scale on the Y axis. The authors stated that the measured population size was 10The authors stand by the results and commented that these issues are due to the method(s) used to prepare the graphs. They stated that they used an early illustrator program into which they copied the values of calculated results (means and standard deviations) of three independent experiments for plotting on electronic millimeter grid paper .The authors stated that the original raw data underlying the graphs of concern are not fully available at this time given the time elapsed. In light of this issue, PLOS has been unable to verify the results and the article does not currently comply in full with the applicable version of the PLOS Data Availability policy*. Nevertheless, the editors consider that the explanation provided by the authors sufficiently clarifies how the graphs were generated.The PLOS Data Availability policy was updated in 2014. The former policy (which was in place in 2008–09, [.*


Hancock  RSC Advances article due to a series of errors. These are:We, the named authors, hereby wholly retract this • A typo in eqn (2) that omits the minus sign in the second term of the denominator. The equation describes the extrapolation of Coupled Cluster Singles (CCS) excited-state total energies to the complete basis set (CBS) limit. Note that this does not affect any of the published CCS/CBS numbers, which were obtained correctly.• An incorrect description of how the excited-state electron-correlation energy was determined for use in the CBS extrapolations of SCS-CC2 and CCSDR(3); note that the actual extrapolations were carried out correctly.• A typo in the SCS-CC2/CBS reference dissociation energy for the pyrene dimer, which impacts all benchmarking results involving this system.• Results for all self-defined global-hybrid functionals used in our exploration of Fock exchange (FE) effects and PBE38 in the benchmarking study. This impacts the discussion of the FE study.• Results for B2GP-PLYP-D4 due to incorrect s6 implementation in the old version (2.0) of the dftd4 program used in our work, which we were not aware of.https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RA07381E.None of our major conclusions, insights and recommendations are affected, but numerical results are. Having consulted with an independent expert, the Royal Society of Chemistry has determined that any changes made to the paper to correct this would be major, and therefore that the best course of action is retraction and republication of the article with the correct data. The Royal Society of Chemistry is happy that the overall conclusions of the paper are not affected by these errors, and therefore that republication of the work with the correct data is appropriate. The republished article was peer reviewed and can be found at We, the authors, brought this matter to the attention of the Royal Society of Chemistry ourselves, and are happy with the decision to retract and republish this article.Signed: Amy C. Hancock and Lars Goerigk, 23rd November 2023RSC AdvancesRetraction endorsed by Laura Fisher, Executive Editor,


There were errors in the original publication , regardiThe authors wish to change the stated concentrations: 156.25, 312.5, 625, 1250, 5000 and 10,000 μg/mL. The correct concentrations are: 31.25, 62.5, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 μg/mL. A correction has been made to Section 4.3.2 (MTT Assay), paragraph number 1.Regarding Figure 4, the authors wish to change the concentration values on the x-axes of both subfigures (A) and (B). The concentration values on the x-axes 10,000, 5000, 2500, 1250, 625 and 312.5 are corrected to 1000, 500, 250, 125, 62.5 and 31.25, and the corrected The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors  agree wi


This article has been retracted: Oncotarget is retracting this article at the request of the authors. The accuracy and authenticity of the data need further analysis. Figure 2 contains incorrect flow cytometry images, and Figures 1 and 3 contain inaccurate data based on flawed patient criteria. As a result, the conclusions of this paper can no longer be verified. All authors, as well as the oversight committee of Tianjin Medical University, have agreed to the retraction of this paper.73774-73786. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17908Original article: Oncotarget. 2017; 8:73774–73786.


Retraction Note: BMC Genomics20, 795 (2019).10.1186/s12864-019-6178-zThe Editor has retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding a number of figures, specifically:Plant, Cell & Environment [1].The WT specimen depicted in Fig. 4A appears to overlap with the Col-0 specimen under drought conditions shown in Fig. 4C in BMC Plant Biology paper [2].The TaGAPC1P-3/TaWRKY40 panel in Fig. 6C appears to overlap with the TaGAPCp3P-3/TaMyb panel of Fig. 9B in the BMC Plant Biology paper [2].Figure 2A  appears to overlap with Fig. 5A  of their BMC Genomics paper appears to overlap with Fig. 5A  of their BMC Plant Biology paper [2].Figure 2A  in their The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.Plant Cell Environ. 2020; 43: 836– 853. 10.1111/pce.13710.[1] Zhang, L, Lei, D, Deng, X, Li, F, Ji, H, Yang, S. Retracted: Cytosolic glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase 2/5/6 increase drought tolerance via stomatal movement and reactive oxygen species scavenging in wheat. Ta_MYB in the _GAPCp2/3 promoters are involved in the drought stress response in wheat. BMC Plant Biol19, 366 (2019). 10.1186/s12870-019-1948-y.[2] Zhang, L., Song, Z., Li, F. et al. RETRACTED ARTICLE: The specific MYB binding sites bound by


The authors regret < The authors regret Fig. 4A of the original manuscript was incorrect. I would appreciate if you would accept to replace by the corrected Fig. 4A.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Cell Death and Disease 10.1038/s41419-020-2695-6, published online 06 July 2020Retraction to: Figure 2d: the TUNEL shNC panel for CNE2 appears to partially overlap with the yH2AX shRKIP+shNRF2 panel for CNE2Figure 2: the TUNEL shRKIP panel for CNE2 appears to partially overlap with the yH2AX shRKIP panel for CNE2Figure 6a: the NRF2 Radioresistant NPC panel appears to be partially overlap with the phosphoStat3 panel in Figure 1A in a previously published article by different authors [1]The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article at the request of the corresponding author. Concerns were raised regarding a number of figures, specifically:The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.The corresponding author has stated on behalf of all authors that they agree with this retraction.


British Journal of Surgery, 2022;, znac302, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znac302This is an erratum to: Eva B Deerenberg, Nadia A Henriksen, George A Antoniou, Stavros A Antoniou, Wichor M Bramer, John P Fischer, Rene H Fortelny, Hakan Gök, Hobart W Harris, William Hope, Charlotte M Horne, Thomas K Jensen, Ferdinand Köckerling, Alexander Kretschmer, Manuel López-Cano, Flavio Malcher, Jenny M Shao, Juliette C Slieker, Gijs H J de Smet, Cesare Stabilini, Jared Torkington, Filip E Muysoms, Updated guideline for closure of abdominal wall incisions from the European and American Hernia Societies, In the originally published version, affiliations of some of the authors were incorrect in the HTML version. All affiliations in the PDF version were correct.These errors have now been corrected.


Retraction Note: Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology (2021) 17:2410.1186/s13223-021-00527-4The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because of multiple overlaps between panels in Figs. 5a and c and 6d of the article and those in rows p-STAT3, HIF-1a and Cyclin D1 of Fig. 5 in a previously-published paper by different authors [


The journal retracts the 2022 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 Bioengineering & Biotechnology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


Conserv Physiol 10(1): coad047; doi: 10.1093/conphys/coad047In the originally published version of this manuscript, the Funding section was given as follows:This work was supported by the strategic Project MARE/UIDB/MAR/04292/2020 and the Project NextGen (PTDC/CTAAMB/31532/2017), co-financed by Science and Technology Foundation through national funds, and by the European Union through FEDER  and Diversiaqua II (Mar2020-P02M01-0656P).The Funding section has been corrected to read as follows:The authors acknowledge the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) through the Lisbon's Regional Operational Programme (LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-031532) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science & Technology (FCT) through the project NextGen (PTDC/CTA-AMB/31532/2017) and the strategic project MARE-UIDB/04292/2020 granted to MARE . The authors also acknowledge DiversiaquaII (Mar2020-P02M01-0656P).


Moreover, certain of the western blotting data shown internally within Fig. 4E and F appeared to be strikingly similar, even though the experiments portrayed in these Figure parts were intended to show the results obtained from different cell lines.Molecular Medicine Reports, and based on an overall lack in the confidence in the data, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. 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 were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, prior to its submission to


The authors regret errors in the list of co-authors, in the data and corresponding text for Hongshuai Hou and Xiaobo Ji wish to be removed from the authorship of this paper. The experiments, data compilation and writing of this article were carried out by the first author Hongliang Li and the corresponding author Mingxiang Deng, and the article was submitted by Hongliang Li. And they erroneously listed Xiaobo Ji and Hongshuai Hou as co-authors. Xiaobo Ji and Hongshuai Hou only provided some instruments and consumables for the experiments in this paper, so Xiaobo Ji and Hongshuai Hou do not feel their contribution is sufficient to be authors on this paper, and they request to update the authorship of this article to remove Hongshuai Hou and Xiaobo Ji as authors of this paper. The correct authorship is presented herein.The following sentence should be included in the acknowledgements: ‘The authors thank Hongshuai Hou and Xiaobo Ji for providing experimental equipment and resources.’The authors regret that the images provided for 2S3in the G/Sb2S3 composite was determined to be 66.68 wt%.” in the original article should be corrected as “Finally, the content of Sb2S3 in the G/Sb2S3 composite was determined to be 74.68 wt%.”The corresponding text “Finally, the content of Sb2S3 composites delivered the average reversible capacities of 642.3, 507.6, 392.1 and 264.9 mA h g−1” in the original article should be corrected as “The G/Sb2S3 composites delivered the average reversible capacities of 544.9, 497.6, 474.5 and 407.0 mA h g−1”.The corresponding text “The G/Sb2S3 composites could recover to 595 mA h g−1 after 20 cycles” in the original article should be corrected as “the average reversible capacity of the G/Sb2S3 composites could recover to 576.7 mA h g−1 after 20 cycles”.The corresponding text “the average reversible capacity of the G/Sb−1 with the capacity retention of 82.9%.” in the original article should be corrected as “After 75 cycles, the reversible capacity was 365.0 mA h g−1 with the capacity retention of 67%.”The corresponding text “After 75 cycles, the reversible capacity was 422 mA h gRSC Advances1 paper, published at nearly the same time, which should have been cited in this RSC Advances paper.The authors wish to draw the readers’ attention to their closely related Fig. 1–5 were re-used in part from ref. 2S3 and stibnite. (b) TGA curves of G/Sb2S3 and stibnite. (c) Raman spectra of G/Sb2S3 and stibnite. (d) Raman spectra of Sb–S. Reproduced in part from Mingxiang Deng et al., RSC Adv., 2019, 9, 15210–15216.1Fig. 1 (a) XRD patterns of G/Sb2S3 and stibnite. The corresponding high-resolution spectra of Sb (b), S (c) and C (d). Reproduced in part from Mingxiang Deng et al., RSC Adv., 2019, 9, 15210–15216.1Fig. 2 (a) XPS survey of G/Sb2S3 composites. (g and h) TEM image of the G/Sb2S3 composites. (i) HR-TEM image of the G/Sb2S3 composites. Reproduced in part from Mingxiang Deng et al., RSC Adv., 2019, 9, 15210–15216.1Fig. 3 (a and b) SEM image of stibnite. (c–f) SEM image of the G/Sb2S3 composites, (b) stibnite. (c) Galvanostatic discharge/charge curves of G/Sb2S3 composites. (d) Cycling performance and coulombic efficiencies of G/Sb2S3 and stibnite. Reproduced in part from Mingxiang Deng et al., RSC Adv., 2019, 9, 15210–15216.1Fig. 4 Cyclic voltammograms of initial three cycles of (a) G/Sb2S3 electrode. (b) Nyquist plots of G/Sb2S3 and stibnite at the initial state. (c) Nyquist plots of G/Sb2S3 at different states. Reproduced in part from Mingxiang Deng et al., RSC Adv., 2019, 9, 15210–15216.1Fig. 5 (a) Rate performance of the SbThe Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 20, 347 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-020-03090-4The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the western blot images. Specifically:In Fig. 6, the blots representing p38 and p-p38 appear highly similar.In the Supplementary materials, the raw data provided for the blots presented in Figs. 5 and 6 appear to contain straight-line breaks and repetitive patterns in the backgrounds.Additionally, there appear to be irregularities in the chromatogram traces presented in Fig. 1.The authors have provided a replacement blot for p38 and stated that the image irregularities were caused by technical problems. However, further raw data provided by the authors appear different from the published versions of the figures and Supplementary materials. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Shuang Wu has stated on behalf of all co-authors that they agree to this retraction.


There was an error in the original publication . In the A correction has been made to the Results Section, Paragraph 1:In 2021, COVID-19 incidence in northwest Russia varied in waves, ranging from 258.8 (per 100 K/month) in April to 1185.8 in November. At the same time, increases in incidence with the achievement of local maxima were recorded in January (1113.5 per 100 K/month), June (822.3 per 100 K/month), and November (1185.8 per 100 K/month) .The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res39, 225 (2020)10.1186/s13046-020-01704-wThe authors have retracted this article because the Western blot data presented in a number of the figures are unreliable. Longgang Wang, Jinxiang Guo, Xiuwen Kang and Lei Zhou agree with this retraction. Dongyang Wang has not responded to correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction. Jin Zhou has stated that she was not involved in the preparation and handling of this manuscript, she was not informed about its publication, and she did not grant permission for the use of her name and affiliation in this article.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 14, 380 (2014)10.1186/1472-6882-14-380Yukyung Karne is specific to ovarian cancer. Due to the cell line issue, the Editor no longer has confidence in the conclusions of this article.The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding similar western blot control images in this article and the authors’ later work . The autNone of the authors agree to this retraction.


In their paper “Challenges with international medical graduate selection: finding positive attributes predictive of success in family medicine residency,” (BMC Prim Care 23(256):2–9, 2022) the authors report on their research into qualitative attributes that positively correspond to success in residency with the objective of assisting in the selection of International Medical Graduate (IMG) residents most likely to achieve success in family medicine residency. The authors found that positive predictors of IMG residents’ success were: presence of a positive attitude, proficient communication skills, high level of clinical knowledge, and trainability. The authors conclude that selecting IMG residents who possess these attributes will result in residents developing increased aptitudes for patient care. A careful reading of the paper raises a number of concerns. MacFarlane (Can Med Educ J 12(4):132–40, 2021) points out that IMGs are already marginalized in the residency selection process. Our concern is that this paper may contribute to this marginalization through a tone of negativity or bias against IMGs and the use of biased language throughout the paper that tends to cast IMGs as being inferior and somehow less well prepared for residency than Canadian Medical Graduates (CMGs). We argue that the proposed predictors are generic and equally relevant to both CMGs and IMGs. In focusing on these predictors in IMGs specifically, the paper appears to imply, without evidence, that IMGs are inadequate in the identified areas. After reviewing the paper’s references, the existing literature, and an analysis of language used, we conclude that IMGs are capable candidates for residency, and that the qualitative attributes outlined in the paper offer little utility for the selection of IMG residents relative to CMG residents. In their paper “Challenges with international medical graduate selection: finding positive attributes predictive of success in family medicine residency,”  the authSuggestions of a negative bias regarding IMGs begin with the title of the paper: “Challenges with international medical graduate selection: finding positive attributes predictive of success in family medicine residency.” Whether intentional or not, the title suggests that it is challenging to select IMGs who will be successful in family medicine residency, or to find positive attributes in IMGs that might predict their success. In support of this proposition, the authors reference Andrew  assertin“Initially, the IMGs in the IMG-BC family medicine program generally performed as well as other residents in their program evaluations, but not as well in the national CFPC certification exam when compared with all BC residents across the various hospital sites. However, IMGs have progressively improved their performance and their results are now comparable with those of their Canadian-trained colleagues” (pg 114).On closer examination of these supporting references, it appears that the authors have misconstrued the referenced papers’ findings. Andrew reported that IMGs performed similarly to CMGs on ITERs but underperformed on CFPC examinations. It is important to note that Andrew’s study which reported on IMG performance in the IMG-BC family medical program dates to 2010. Interestingly, Thomson and Cohl  reportedThe improvement was attributed to “techniques for exam success”. This suggests that IMG performance on CFPC examinations is not clear cut, that there may be many factors that influence performance, including exam taking skills versus medical competence, and that performance may vary over time.With regard to the Mathews reference, nowhere in the Mathews paper can we find a reference to medical educators being concerned regarding shortcomings of IMGs on family medicine examinations. Regarding IMG success rates, Mathews and colleagues reported 78.1% of IMGs received CFPC certification (i.e. passed exams). However, their study does not compare IMG outcomes on CFPC exams with CMG outcomes, therefore there is no way to determine whether a 78.1% success rate for IMGs is better or worse than the CMG success rate. Further, the authors’ analysis does not account for the fact that despite progress in examination design, exam-taking skills remain a factor that confound efforts at assessing competence. The authors’ conclusion that IMGs currently struggle with performance on family medicine examinations, and the implication that this reflects on competence, is not supported by the references provided.Unfortunately, the difficulties with this paper run deeper. On page 2 of the paper, the authors note that, “An increasing percentage of IMGs have completed their medical degrees 5–9 years before beginning residency” then go on to suggest that “This gap in training could result in reduced recency of knowledge acquired in medical school and could play a role in IMGs struggling in examinations.” Entirely aside from the weakness of evidence provided by the authors to support IMGs as actually “struggling” in examinations, in a careful reading of the author’s own supporting reference, Mathew’s and colleagues found that there was not a significant difference between recent graduates and new graduates in passing the CFPC exam. There was a significant difference between recent graduates and new graduates in passing the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Exam 2 (MCCQE2) but one which contradicts the authors’ hypothesis. In their discussion section, Mathews, et al. conclude that “Given that they have more clinical experience, it is not surprising that older graduates are more likely than their younger counterparts are to pass the MCCQE2 (an examination written after the first year of residency training); there is no difference between recent and older graduates’ performance on certification  examinations.““Blame for the failure of many IMGs on family medicine examinations” (Pg 2) on time since graduation is not supported by their own references. Also noteworthy is the authors’ use of language. The authors refer to “the failure of many IMGs,” yet the authors have failed to support their proposition that “many” IMGs have failed examinations. How many is “many”? The choice of wording implies a serious problem with IMG performance, yet this is not established. It is the use of language like this throughout this paper that gives rise to a perception of bias and negativity regarding IMGs.Consider the following passages:“candidates can be selected that are better suited for the established education system.” (Pg 2) Are the authors implying that IMGs are not well suited to the established educational system?“more robust candidates can be selected and issues can be mitigated during residency, which will lead to family medicine practitioners who can provide patient care.” (Pg 2) Are the authors suggesting that IMGs are not robust candidates and that they have issues that mean they cannot provide adequate patient care?“Thus, if a candidate has been educated in a system that lacks adequate professionalism development, it will be challenging to institute such changes so late in training.” (Pg 6) The authors appear to be arguing that international educational systems generate physicians who lack professionalism and that, further, this lack of professionalism will be “challenging” to address in training. It is difficult not to see such a proposition as reflecting a negative bias against IMGs.It may be argued that the authors’ key findings that residents’ success is enhanced by the presence of a positive attitude, proficient communication skills, a high level of clinical knowledge, and trainability are equally relevant to CMGs or any professional. In their conclusion, the authors acknowledge that “It is evident that the competencies revealed in this study are relevant to both IMGs and CMGs” yet they spend an entire paper trying to demonstrate that IMGs in particular may be challenged by inadequacies in these areas.The biased language continues throughout the authors’ analysis of their four key indicators of success. With regard to trainability, the authors note that, “The attribute that most commonly associated to an IMG resident’s trainability was professionalism.” (Pg 3) Again, the authors appear to be implying that IMGs suffer from a lack of professionalism without offering any supporting evidence. The authors go on to further discuss professionalism stating that, “unprofessional residents present a strong association to lawsuits and adverse outcomes in their later careers.” (Pg 6) Such discussions in the context of a paper focusing on selection criteria for IMGs raises the spectre of IMGs as a source of unprofessional conduct, lawsuits, and adverse outcomes. Such implications can only have a negative impact on public and professional assessments of IMGs’ abilities.The authors go on to link trainability with emotional intelligence, stating that, “Emotional Intelligence is understood as the ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions in oneself and others.” (Pg 6) Again, in the context of a paper focused on characteristics that contribute to IMG success in residency, are the authors implying without evidence that IMGs lack emotional intelligence? The authors also highlight the ability to accept and integrate feedback as an important part of trainability. Concerningly, the authors suggest that “certain cultural norms may preclude proper assessment of this trait.” (Pg 6) Such an unsupported statement linking cultural norms with an inability to accept and integrate feedback is suggestive of a perspective that IMGs raised and educated in other cultures have difficulty accepting and integrating feedback. Such a perspective is highly questionable.The above vignettes illustrate concerns regarding bias against IMGs reflected in this paper, and in at least some of the medical profession. A careful reader will notice other examples. The authors conclude that “Overall the methodology of this study is sound” and that, “All identified predictors were determined to correspond with IMG family medicine residents’ success in residency.”  With respect, we disagree that the methodology of this study is sound. Aside from the lack of specificity of these predictors to IMGs, all interviews were conducted by the same interviewer, which introduces a level of bias that is not addressed in the paper. As the author notes, there may well be a sampling bias. With only 13 of 25 preceptors approached agreeing to participate, the question arises why others were reluctant, and whether some of those who did agree to participate may have chosen to do so because they wished to articulate negative experiences with IMGs. The authors do not appear to have explored the respondents’ reasons for deciding to participate in the study.Finally, in the original paper , the stuIn conclusion, the attributes identified by the authors offer little to assist in the selection of IMG family medicine residents. Further, the implications throughout this paper of IMG inadequacy are disturbing and in contradiction to existing research and literature that demonstrates that IMGs are capable residency candidates and that IMG patient outcomes are equal to or superior to those of CMGs or North American trained physicians. , 7 The a


British Journal of Cancer 10.1038/s41416-020-01153-4, published online 16 November 2020Correction to: The original version of this article contained an error in an affiliation. Upon careful review of the paper, the authors noticed that the affiliation for Goran Malenkovic was not written correctly. The authors only submitted the following affiliation Gynecologic Oncology Department Clinic for Operative Oncology, Institute of Oncology of Vojvodina, Serbia but they missed to notice that the Faculty of Medicine Novi Sad, University of Novi Sad, Serbia should also be in the affiliation.


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


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 42, 14 (2023)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-022-02588-8The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding a number of figures, specifically:Fig. 2B: the si-2# invasion panel appears to partially overlap with si-BCAR4 + miR-644a inhibitor invasion panel in Fig. 4EFig. 4E: the control panels for migration and invasion appear to overlapFig. 4E: the si-BCAR4 panels for migration and invasion appear to overlapFig. 4F: the control panels for migration and invasion appear to overlapFig. 5C: the mimic nc and inhibitor nc panels appear to overlapFig. 5C: the mimic nc and miR-644a inhibitor panels appear to overlapThe Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.Zhongxin Lu has stated on behalf of all authors that they agree to this retraction.


Retraction Note: BMC Med 17, 223 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1457-8The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the images presented in Fig. 7. Specifically:The left PHA image in Fig. 7a appears highly similar to the middle PHA image in Fig. 7b (rotated);All the Medium images in Fig. 7a and b appear highly similar; the left and right images in Fig. 7b appear to be missing some features compared with the other images.The authors have been able to provide the quantified data, but stated that the original images are no longer available. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.None of the authors agrees to this retraction.


Correction: Spine Deformity 10.1007/s43390-023-00732-8The authors of the article would like to state the following acknowledgment:


Special Account for Research Grants (ELKE) of University of West Attica.'' have not been included in the Acknowledgments section of the paper. Please add the before mentioned text in the Acknowledgments section.>.The authors regret < The acknowledgments ``This study has received financial support from the The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


The authors would like to make the following correction to the published paper . The chaAdd this sentence to “Acknowledgement” section: The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research and King Saud University for funding made available through the Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chair.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors have requested that this preprint be removed from Research Square.


The journal and Chief Editors retract the 29 November 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 Endocrinology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Due to a production error, the text “One of the handling editors for this special issue is DP, who is also an author of this submitted manuscript. We have therefore suggested name of other handling editor Shashi Kant Bhatia for our manuscript to avoid the conflict.” was incorrectly added to the Conflict of Interest Statement. The corrected statement reads:“The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”The publisher apologizes for this mistake. The original article has been updated.


Correction to: Globalization and Health (2022) 18:8510.1186/s12992-022-00878-6Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified errors in Table 4 and in the analysis provided in Additional File 2.Concerning Table Regarding Additional File 2, the logistic multi-level regression analyses results in this file were inconsistent with the results that are provided in Figure 3. This inconsistency was the result of an error in the statistical analyses performed by the authors, whereby the authors mistakenly presented the association between the income of countries and the likelihood of specific vaccines and vaccination objectives being included in AMR plans. Additional File 2 has since been corrected in the published article.Per the correction of Additional File 2, the following corrections have been made (see the corrections highlighted in bold) in:The ‘Country comparison’ subsection of the Results:higher probability of including specific vaccines in AMR plans . We found a weaker association, non-significant as well, in the opposite direction between income and the probability of including vaccination objectives in action plans; here an increase in income is accompanied by a slightly lower probability . The multilevel model shows that regional variation is larger when it comes to the inclusion of specific vaccines in national action plans compared to objectives on vaccination (see Supplementary File 2).’‘We assessed the association between income and vaccination using multilevel logistic regression and found that an increase of income is accompanied by a The Results section of the Abstract:lower income countries, while higher income countries more often include specific vaccines.’‘We found indications that vaccination objectives are more often included in AMR plans from The Discussion section:less likely to include vaccination objectives in their action plans.’‘Similarly, our review found indications of a possible association between the income level and a focus on objectives on vaccination, with HICs The original article has since been updated to correct these errors. The authors thank you for reading this erratum and apologize for any inconvenience caused.Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Additional File 2


Additional Affiliation(s).“Guihua, Jiang”. In addition to affiliation(s) “2 The Department of Medical Imaging, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, Guangzhou 510317, China;”, the updated affiliation(s) should include: “1 The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China;”. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the published publication , there w


Huynh et al., RSC Adv., 2020, 10, 18423–18433, https://doi.org/10.1039/D0RA01750G.Retraction of ‘New synthesis of 2-aroylbenzothiazoles  RSC Advances article due to irreproducibility of the reaction yields.Tien V. Huynh, Ngoc T. K. Luong, Duyen T. P. Nguyen, Tung T. Nguyen and Nam T. S. Phan hereby wholly retract this Khang V. Doan and Son H. Doan were informed about the retraction of the article, but have not responded to any correspondence regarding the retraction.3aa–3df) could not be reproduced when freshly opened reagents and solvents were used. It could be reasoned that the reported reagents were contaminated with unknown impurities, which have facilitated the reaction.The results shown in Table 2 (the synthesis of compounds The corresponding authors regret this carelessness and apologise for any inconvenience to readers.Signed: Tien V. Huynh, Khang V. Doan, Ngoc T. K. Luong, Duyen T. P. Nguyen, Son H. Doan, Tung T. Nguyen and Nam T. S. Phan.Date: 16th March 2023RSC AdvancesRetraction endorsed by Laura Fisher, Executive Editor,


In “Emotional Distress During COVID-19 due to Mental Health Conditions and Economic Vulnerability: Retrospective Analysis of Survey-Linked Twitter Data With a Semisupervised Machine Learning Algorithm” , the authors noted one error.The title “Emotional Distress During COVID-19 due to Mental Health Conditions and Economic Vulnerability: Retrospective Analysis of Survey-Linked Twitter Data With a Semisupervised Machine Learning Algorithm” has been changed to “Emotional Distress During COVID-19 by Mental Health Conditions and Economic Vulnerability: Retrospective Analysis of Survey-Linked Twitter Data With a Semisupervised Machine Learning Algorithm.”The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on March 27, 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.


Oncol Lett 20: 80, 2020].Oncology Letters, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in Fig. 2 of the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


The authors wish to make three changes to their published paper .M was wrong, and the value of the maximum mode number N was missing. The corrected sentence is shown below:There is a mistake in Section 3, on page 4. The value of the maximum principal mode number N = 580 and the maximum principal mode number is M = N1/2 = 24 at λ = 633 nm, for g = 2.0, and The maximum mode number for the GI mPOF under study is X-axis label should be m/M. The authors added “” in the legend for There is a mistake in Figure 2. The The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.