Bioscience Reports at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board following receipt of a notification from a reader alerting the Editorial Board to an apparent duplicate region within the si-NC and the miR-143-3p mimic + pcDNA-MSI2 panels of Figure 7H. Additional concerns exist over the western blots within the paper. The authors have been contacted with regards to the retraction and have not responded to the Journal's queries or the concerns raised. Given the extent of the issues raised, the Editorial Board stand by the decision to retract the article.This article is being retracted from


The authors report a correction of the first equation on page 12 . The “minus” operator should be “plus” in the equation as it shown on the following picture.The authors state that the correction does not affect the results and conclusions of the paper.


Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity has retracted the article titled “Melatonin Attenuates Cardiac Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury through Modulation of IP3R-Mediated Mitochondria-ER Contact” [Contact”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree with the retraction.


Retraction Note:J Exp Clin Cancer Res38, 19 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-018-1010-1Figure 2D: the Oct4 blot looks similar to blot described as CD133 in Fig. 7D of [Figure 4C: one of the actin controls looks very similar to the blot previously published  in Fig. Figure 7B, the actin control appears similar to the Tubulin one in Fig. 4B in a previously-published paper by different authors [Figure 8C, the upper actin control seems similar to the a-tubulin blot in Fig. 4B of a previously-published paper  by diffeFigure 8C, the lower actin control seems similar to the A549 actin control in Fig. 3A of a previously-published paper  by diffeThe Editor in Chief has retracted this article. Although Fig. 9 was corrected in May 2019 [Additionally, the tumour sizes in the corrected Fig. 9 do not appear to match the volume bar chart, and the additional tumours in FigS5A appear too large to meet ethical standards around animal welfare.The authors sent raw photos but were unable to provide the original Western blot images and the ethics approval. The Editor in Chief, therefore, has lost confidence in the integrity of the findings of this article. All authors agree with this retraction.


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this International Journal of Hydrogen Energy article by the same authors,1 which is a high resolution transmission electron micrograph representing Pt/TPA@rGO NPs.The high resolution transmission electron micrograph inset in Fig. 2 that represents Pt NPs/TPrA@VC-AC is a duplicated and rotated version of the inset in Fig. 2a in an RSC Advances article, which is a transmission electron micrograph representing Pt NPs/TPrA@VC, is a duplicated and scaled version of Fig. S2, also in the ESI, which is a transmission electron micrograph representing Pt NPs/TPrA@AC.Fig. S1 in the ESI of this The authors claim that these are mistakes and provided replacement data for consideration. However, an expert reviewed the authors’ response and concluded that it did not satisfactorily address the concerns, and that the replacement figures did not fully support the conclusions. Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.Fatih Sen opposes this retraction. Handan Pamuk, Yunus Yıldız, Ozlem Karatepe and Zeynep Dasdelen were contacted but did not respond.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, Date: 23rd September 2021


The authors apologise for a misspelling of the seventh author’s name: Wei-Jian Wang should instead read Wei-Jan Wang.Also, the following financial support statement was erroneously omitted from the acknowledgements section:This research was supported by China Medical University (CMU109-MF-55 to W.-J.W).


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 41, 152 (2022)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-022-02356-8Fig. 1c states that co-localization of CD206 and miR-15b-5p is presented, but only images for miR-15b-5p and DAPI are presented.Fig. 1i blots appear to have deleted backgrounds and an artifact in the Calnexin image.Figs. 1b, 3e and 5c use SGC-7901 cells, which are contaminated with HeLa.Fig. 5i MKN-45 data don’t appear to match Fig. S2c.Fig. 7c AGS BRMS1 data don’t appear to match Fig. S2f.Fig. S2a MKN-45 VIM lanes 1 and 2 have similar artifacts on the right side of the bands.The study did not obtain ethics approval prior to the start of the experiment.The authors have retracted this article. After publication, the authors realized there were potential errors with figure labels and the cell lines used in the experiments. Additional checks have identified that:The authors have been able to provide alternative data for Figs. 1i, S2a, c and f to address some of these concerns. However, the cell line and ethics issues could not be resolved.All authors agree to this retraction.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that several of the data panels shown in Fig. 4A were overlapping with panels contained within the same figure, where the panels were intended to portray the results from a range of different cell migration assay experiments. Given the number of overlaps of data that have been identified, the Editor of


The authors wish to correct the following error in the original paper .An additional affiliation (University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Nieves Cano, 12, 01006, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) has been added to the first author. Due to this change, the numbers of the rest of the affiliations of each author were updated.The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the academic editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Correction to genetic variants in LKB1/AMPK/mTOR pathway are associated with clinical outcomes of chemotherapy in non‐small cell lung cancerIn Sun Ha Choi et al.The authors noticed that the funding statement is missing. The Funding information section should read:This research was supported by Kyungpook National University Research Fund, 2021.The publisher apologizes for the error and any inconvenience it may have caused.


Cell Death and Disease 10.1038/cddis.2013.465, published online 16 January 2014Retraction to: The vinculin bands in lanes 1–2 in Fig. 8b are used to represent vinculin in a different experiment published as Fig. 4A lanes 1–2 in [In Fig. 8d the Bim EL, BimL and BimS bands have been duplicated in lanes 4 & 5.In Fig. 8d the p-Akt bands in lanes 4 & 5 have been duplicated.The Editors are retracting this article because of concerns with a number of figures. An investigation by the University of Milan confirmed that:The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the data.Maria Alfonsina Desiderio does not agree to this retraction. Paola Maroni, Paola Bendinelli, Emanuela Matteucci, Alessia Locatelli and Giorgio Scita have not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction. The publisher was unable to find up-to-date contact details for Toshikazu Nakamura.


The authors regret that references 77–89 were incorrectly given in the original article. The correct references are listed here:RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 51563.77 Y. Xue, Y. Wen, W. Huijuan, M. Liu, X. Huang, X. Ye, X. Wang and B. Li, Chem. Mater., 1997, 9, 210–217.78 G. Zhang, J. Sterte and B. J. Schoeman, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl., 1997, 36, 477–479.79 R. Murugavel and H. W. Roesky, Kinet. Catal., 2015, 56, 450–455.80 M. G. Clerici, Soft Matter, 2013, 9, 2553.81 A. B. Kayitmazer, D. Seeman, B. B. Minsky, P. L. Dubin and Y. Xu, Langmuir, 2005, 21, 9675–9688.82 F. Cousin, J. Gummel, D. Ung and F. Boué, ACS Catal., 2017, 7, 2047–2051.83 Y. Zhang, Q. Wang and H. Hess, Biochemistry, 1964, 3, 1913–1919.84 L. Goldstein, Y. Levin and E. Katchalski, Biochemistry, 1966, 5, 139–143.85 K. Kleppe, Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7, 1245–1252.86 C. L. de Vasconcelos, P. M. Bezerril, D. E. S. dos Santos, T. N. C. Dantas, M. R. Pereira and J. L. C. Fonseca, Zeolites, 1992, 12, 943–950.87 A. Thangaraj, M. J. Eapen, S. Sivasanker and P. Ratnasamy, Anal. Biochem., 1996, 236, 302–308.88 T. Zor and Z. Selinger, Anal. Biochem., 1976, 72, 248–254.89 M. Bradford, The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Correction: Mol Cancer 12, 96 (2013)https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-4598-12-96In our BMC Research publication in Molecular Cancer entitled ‘Histone acetyltransferase PCAF Up-regulated cell apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma via acetylating histone H4 and inactivating AKT signaling’ , we regrThe authors all agree to this Corrigendum and are grateful to the Editor of Molecular Cancer for allowing them to have the opportunity to correct these errors. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Bioscience Reports at the request of the authors. Further experiments performed by the authors showed that LncRNA AWPPH had no promotion of cell growth in HCC38, HCC1187 or 4T1. Thus, the conclusion that LncRNA AWPPH is a tumor promoter in TNBC should be further studied to validate the results.This article is being retracted from The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board agree with the retraction.


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


Sci., 2022, 13, 2456–2461, https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC06459B.Correction for ‘An engineered third electrostatic constriction of aerolysin to manipulate heterogeneously charged peptide transport’ by Hongyan Niu  The authors regret an error in the spelling of Meng-Yin Li’s name in the original manuscript. The correct spelling is as shown in this Correction article.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In the original publication , there wThe authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “MicroRNA-489 Promotes the Apoptosis of Cardiac Muscle Cells in Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Based on Smart Healthcare”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


This article has been retracted after an investigation was conducted by senior faculty and leadership at the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. This retraction is the result of a dispute between authors regarding authorship as well as the presence of incorrect and incomplete information. Dr. Uma Pandey initially contacted the journal with these concerns and, after an investigation by the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University and failure among the authors to come to an agreement regarding amended authorship and corrections, we have elected to retract the article as suggested by Dr. Pandey and senior faculty and leadership at the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. Issues raised by Dr. Pandey and corroborated by the investigation include: missing authors, incorrect author placement for Dr. Pandey and others, and incorrect/incomplete information. Dr. Pandey and the journal regret that these disputes were not handled accordingly prior to submission.


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


Retraction Note: Journal of Hematology & Oncology (2019) 12:135https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-019-0830-6The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because of a number of further image irregularities in the figures were found after publication of a correction . SpecifiJiwei Guo does not agree to this retraction. Dan Jin, Yan Wu, Jing Du, Lijuan Yang, Xiaohong Wang, Weihua Di, Baoguang Hu, Jiajia An, Lingqun Kong, Lei Pan and Guoming Su did not respond to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


The journal and Chief Editors have retracted the 19 July 2021 article cited above.Shortly after publication, our office received letters of complaint questioning the integrity of the article, following which an Expression of Concern was published and a thorough investigation was conducted, in accordance with our policies and COPE guidelines.The investigation found that the claims made in the conclusions were not adequately supported by the methodology of the study. In particular, as confirmed by an external expert, the process of allocation to treatment and control was not sufficiently random.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Medicine and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors disagree with this retraction.


POU2F2 and not the protein of SLC22A2, as intended. The correct legend appears below.In the original publication , there wThe 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.


Understanding the role of inflammation in developing respiratory illnesses such as COPD, asthma, and lung cancer, is critical. Natural cures are regaining favor as effective treatments for various ailments . A flavThe authors declare no conflict of interest.


In the original publication , there wThe 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.


Acknowledgments Section:There was an error in the original publication . A correAcknowledgments: We thank K. Shashok for editing the use of English in this manuscript. 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 of this paper  have agrThe updated authorship is listed as below:Donatella Marazziti, Beatrice Buccianelli, Stefania Palermo, Elisabetta Parra, Alessandro Arone, Maria Francesca Beatino, Lucia Massa, Barbara Carpita, Filippo M. Barberi, Federico Mucci and Liliana Dell’Osso. The updated author contribution is as follows:Author Contributions: D.M., B.B., S.P., E.P., L.M., L.D. and F.M. planned the review study. D.M., F.M., B.C., F.M.B., A.A., M.F.B. and L.D. revised all the specific literature. D.M., S.P., E.P. and L.M. wrote the first version of the paper, which was subsequently revised and approved by all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


DOI: 1039/C3RA43120GExpression of concern for ‘Layer-by-layer aqueous synthesis, characterization and fluorescence properties of type-II CdTe/CdS core/shell quantum dots with near-infrared emission’ by Rijun Gui  However, they have not been able to provide a satisfactory explanation for all of the duplicated images that appear in the later publications. An expression of concern will continue to be associated with this article until we are able to obtain conclusive evidence about the reliability of this RSC Advances article.Laura FisherDate: 21st September 2020Executive Editor, RSC Advances


After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that certain of the immunohistochemical data shown in Fig. 4C and the cell migration assay data shown in Fig. 3B and D and Fig. 7B and D were strikingly similar to data that had appeared in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


It should have shown a magnification of the bottom left image. In The authors regret that


Retraction Note: Mol Cancer 16, 18 (2017)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-017-0586-yThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, the authors requested corrections to Figs. 1F, 3A and 3C due to image misuse. Subsequently, concerns were raised regarding similarity between Fig. 1F (top left panel) in this article and Fig. 3C (bottom right panel) in another article [In Fig. 2C, the flow cytometry analysis for SGC-7901 cells uses inconsistent gating .In Fig. 5G, there appears to be high similarity between the p-AKT western blot images .Further checks by the Publisher have identified the following:The authors have provided raw data to address these concerns. However, the data contain further discrepancies. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Dan Xie has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction. Sheng Ye has stated on behalf of the remaining co-authors that they disagree with this retraction.


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “Effect of Core Strength Training on Rehabilitation of Chronic Low Back Pain in Aerobics Athletes” [thletes”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Supplementary Materials were not included. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.The authors wish to make the following correction to this paper . In the Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/children9040569/s1, Table S1: differences between HLA-B27 positive and HLA-B27 negative twins; Table S2: differences between HLA-B27 positive twins and juvenile spondyloarthritis subjects.


Applied Bionics and Biomechanics has retracted the article titled “Biomechanical Research on Special Ability of Long Jump Take-Off Muscle Based on Multisource Information Fusion” [ Fusion”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 20, 54 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-020-2834-8In Fig. 3A, subpanels b and c appear to overlap, with several cells missing from subpanel b.In Fig. 5a, subpanels e and f appear to overlap, but have different brightness.The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding partial image overlap. Specifically:The authors have only been able to retrieve parts of the original data. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the data presented in this article.All authors agree to this retraction.


In the article , there i1 was incorrect in Table The OR value 6.74 for BSACorrespondingly, the following sentence on page 941,The treatment (BSA) dominates the other variables and increases the odds of healing by 6.74 (P = .00015).Should have read:The treatment (BSA) dominates the other variables and increases the odds of healing by 6.7 (P = .00015).


In view of the fact that these apparent duplications of data have come to light, the Editor of Oncology Reports 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.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that certain of the mouse images shown in Fig. 5A and the flow cytometric assay data shown in Fig. 4A and B were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by some of the same authors, but which had already been published elsewhere or were already under consideration for publication, prior to this paper's submission to


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Analysis of the Role of Comprehensive Treatment Model in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer” [ Cancer”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors agree to the retraction.


Viruses entitled “Nucleocapsid (N) gene mutations of SARS-CoV-2 can affect real-time RT-PCR diagnostic and impact false-negative results” [The authors hereby request the inclusion of two authors (Olivia Teixeira and Maria Cristina Nonato) in the recently published article in results” . As already demonstrated to the Journal, the authors Olivia Teixeira and Maria Cristina Nonato were very important contributors of this article as they were solely responsible for the analysis of the protein structure and the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 mutations on its function at RNA and protein levels. They also collaborated in the discussion of results and the preparation of Figure 2 of the protein structure. Therefore, Olivia Teixeira and Maria Cristina Nonato have to be part of this article as authors. Their names are added between Luiz Carlos Junior de Alcantara and Loyze Paola Oliveira de Lima. All authors have agreed on this change. An additional affiliation, 6, is added in regard to the addition of two authors (Olivia Teixeira and Maria Cristina Nonato). The numbers of other affiliations have been adjusted accordingly. Newly added affiliation 6: Ribeirao Preto Protein Crystallography Laboratory, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto 14040-903, São Paulo, Brazil.In the published publication, there was an error regarding the affiliation for “Dimas Tadeu Covas”. In addition to affiliation “2”, the updated affiliation should include: “8, Blood Center of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14051-060, São Paulo, Brazil”.The contributions of Olivia Teixeira and Maria Cristina Nonato were not included in the original publication. The corrected Author Contributions Statement appears here. Author Contributions: Conceptualization and designed the experiments: H.F.; performed the analysis: J.C.C.L., M.D.P., O.T. and M.C.N.; analyzed the data: J.C.C.L., H.F., E.C.d.M.O., G.R., L.G.C., O.T. and M.C.N.; writing—original draft preparation: J.C.C.L.; writing—review and editing: J.C.C.L., M.D.P., M.G., S.K. and H.F.; Molecular screening and produced SARS-CoV-2 genomic data: J.C.C.L., M.D.P., E.C.d.M.O., J.S.L.P., L.G.C., V.L.V., M.G., L.C.J.d.A., L.P.O.d.L., A.J.M., C.R.d.S.B., E.C.M., J.d.S.T.B., D.B.M., R.A.B., R.d.L.R.C.C., P.D.S.C.M., S.N.S., R.B.d.S., E.S.R., E.V.S., J.S.B., D.G.L.d.L.R., J.P.K., B.S., P.A.A., F.A.d.S.d.C., C.A.B., L.S., M.M.M., M.P., F.E.V.d.S., R.M.T.G., J.A.S.-N., M.L.N., L.L.C., R.T.C., R.M.N., D.T.C., S.C.S., M.C.E., S.K., H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.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.


Gad et al., RSC Adv., 2022, 12, 19209–19224, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA03177A.Correction for ‘Modification of silica nanoparticles by 2,4-dihydroxybenzaldehyde and 5-bromosalicylaldehyde as new nanocomposites for efficient removal and preconcentration of Cu( In −1. The corrected versions of the tables are shown below.The authors regret that the units of the concentration in The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 10.1038/s41392-022-00885-4, published online 02 March 2022Correction to: 1, the authors noticed the inadvertent mistakes occurred in Fig. After online publication of the articleThe authors mistakenly switched “4h” and “1d” UMAP plots. The correct version of Fig. The authos mistakenly spelled “Leukocyte” as “Leukecyte”. The correct version of Fig.


J Clin Invest. 2022;132(7):e148667. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI148667Original citation: J Clin Invest. 2022;132(19):e165107. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI165107Citation for this corrigendum: http://genomics.cicbiogune.es/CANCERTOOL/index.html), the two panels included in The authors recently became aware that, following the recent update of Cancertool  breast cancer dataset (OSM in the Wang (20) dataset did not reveal a significant association with disease-free survival  and disease-free survival (DFS) data for breast cancer patients based on OSM mRNA expression in the METABRIC (19) and Wang (20) datasets were analyzed and represented using the CANCERTOOL interface (59) in combination with cBioPortal .The authors regret the errors.


Furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the attention of the Editorial Office by a concerned reader that the western blots featured in


In the original publication , there w−1 to 3.66 ± 0.55 S m−1 when 2 w/v% of MXenes were added into the ADA-GEL” should be changed to “…and the conductivity increased from 0.299 ± 0.063 S m−1 to 0.366 ± 0.055 S m−1 when 2 w/v% of MXenes were added into the ADA-GEL”.In Section 3.2, paragraph 2: “…and the conductivity increased from 2.99 ± 0.63 S mThe 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: BMC Cancer 21, 1310 (2021)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08923-0The Editor has retracted this article at the corresponding author's request. After publication, the authors became aware that their MHCC-97H and HCCLM3 cell lines were contaminated with HepG2, which affected the results of the FAM83H-AS1 overexpression experiment. The authors therefore no longer have confidence in the conclusions of this article.All authors agree to this retraction.


This article has been corrected at the request of the authors to remove the following sentence from the discussion section:“Additionally, a parallel study of the direct physiologic effects of this technique on an animal model - and comparison to commercial nerve-wrap products - is ongoing in our laboratory.”Such a study is not ongoing in the lab and has not been completed.The authors deeply regret that these errors were not identified and addressed prior to publication.


The authors also apologize for any inconvenience caused.The corrected versions of


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “Monitoring and Analysis of Youth Sports Physique by Intelligent Medical Robot Based on Cognitive Computing” [mputing”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


The authors would like to make the following correction to the published paper .The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication, there were some errors in the affiliation(s) for Masayuki Tanaka, Sanae Isaki, Keiko Yokoyama and Akira Miyajima. The corrected affiliations appear below. 1,*,†, Hakushi Kim 2,*,†, MasaTomoyoshi Komiyama 3, Sanae Isaki 3, Keiko Yokoyama 3, Akira Miyajima 4 and Hiroyuki Kobayashi 1yuki Tanaka 1 hkobayas@is.icc.u-tokai.ac.jpDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara 259-1193, Kanagawa, Japan; 2 Department of Urology, Tokai University Hachioji Hospital, Tokyo 192-0032, Tokyo, Japan3 matanaka@tokai-u.jp (M.T.); sanaei@tsc.u-tokai.ac.jp (S.I.); kekoyoko@tsc.u-tokai.ac.jp (K.Y.)Medical Science College Office, Tokai University, Isehara 259-1193, Kanagawa, Japan; 4 akiram@tokai.ac.jpDepartment of Urology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara 259-1193, Kanagawa, Japan; *komiyama@tokai-u.jp (T.K.); qblong888@gmail.com (H.K.); Tel.: +81-463-93-1121 (T.K.)Correspondence: †These authors contributed equally to this study.


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


The retraction has been agreed because there are inconsistencies in Figures 1 and 5 that render the data difficult to interpret and the original data could not be provided to support the conclusions. The authors asked to retract the manuscript because their confidence in the results has been undermined by these inconsistencies.The following article, published online on 20 January 2020 in Wiley Online Library (


The authors regret to declare that a Table that appears in the published article  presenteThe authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “Preparation of Bismuth Tungstate Nanomaterials with Different Morphologies and Their Effect on Exercise Rehabilitation of Patients with Lumbar Disc Herniation” [niation”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy (2022) 7:298; 10.1038/s41392-022-01149-x, published online 28 August 2022Correction to: 1 the authors noticed the order of Figs. After online publication of the review,


Padghan  RSC Advances article following an institutional investigation carried out by RMIT University.The Royal Society of Chemistry, with the agreement of the authors, hereby wholly retracts this Fig. 1 contains several identical vials representing different experiments.The investigation found that this paper “breached the Australian Code and RMIT Research Policy by not ensuring that conclusions are justified by the results and not responsibly disseminating research findings”. A recommendation was given that this paper is retracted.Dr Sachin D. Padghan was fully responsible for the error that happened in the figure. All other authors Rajesh S. Bhosale, Namdev V. Ghule, Avinash L. Puyad, Sheshanath V. Bhosale and Sidhanath V. Bhosale are not responsible for this error.Signed: Sachin D. Padghan, Rajesh S. Bhosale, Namdev V. Ghule, Avinash L. Puyad, Sheshanath V. Bhosale and Sidhanath V. BhosaleDate: 09/01/2023


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that various panels showing cell migration assay data in Figs. 3B and C and 5C and D were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Furthermore, overlapping data panels were identified within this paper comparing the cell migration assay images between Figs. 3B and 5C. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


Communications Biology 10.1038/s42003-022-04232-9, published online 19 November 2022.Correction to: The Peer Review File that was originally published with the Article contained confidential data which the authors only intended to disclose to the peer reviewers. Figures containing the confidential data have now been redacted from pages 15, 22, 23, 38, and 45 of the Peer Review File.


The authors regret that the original version of our paper unfortunately contained incorrect data in Figure The corrections made in this erratum do not affect the original conclusions. The authors apologize for any inconvenience that the errors may have caused.


There was an error in the original publication . We mistA correction was implemented in Section 1 in the second paragraph of the Introduction:“…an estimated 100,000 pet ferrets in the UK [13]”.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 Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding image overlap across various panels in Fig. 8. The authors have stated that incorrect images were used, but have been unable to provide the full raw data. Additionally, the authors could not justify the anesthetic protocol used for rat stereotaxic surgery. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data and ethics of this article.Author Haichen Niu has stated on behalf of all co-authors that they agree to this retraction.


Funding: This project was funded by The Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, the project no. (IFKSURG-2-940).Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project no. (IFKSURG-2-940).In the original publication , the funThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Dear Dr. Rujittika Mungmunpuntipantip,Thank you for your letter and comments on the paper. The paper described by Ong et al. focuses on the safety and adverse events among the PWE following COVID‐19 immunization. Some of the recruited subjects in the paper have other comorbidities, which do not deter them from being vaccinated. Some adverse events are inevitable, which are not proven to be more frequent or more severe compared with the general population. All in all, the benefits of COVID‐19 vaccination outweigh its potential risks.We confirm that we have read the Journal's position on issues involved in ethical publication and affirm that this report is consistent with those guidelines. Neither of the authors has any conflict of interest to disclose for this letter.Thank you.Best regards,Corresponding author:Ching Soong Khoo.Department of Medicine,Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre.chingsoongkhoo@gmail.comEmail: Lead author:Marjorie Jia Yi Ong.The National University of Malaysia.marjorieongjiayi@gmail.comEmail:


The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The authors agree with this correction. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.We received a complaint from the Université Catholique de Louvain. In the published version of the article , there w


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/srep20879, published online 12 February 2016Addendum to: Concerns have been raised post-publication about the similarity between the WT and APP/PS1 images in Figure


In an articleAll the transmission electron microscope images  are uploaded in error and these are corrected in the figures below.Figure 1Figure 3Figure 6The authors apologize for the error.


In the original publication , there wThe categories in the bar charts in In the original publication, there was a formatting error in The relevant section of the corrected 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.


Retraction Note: BMC Biochem 13, 25 (2012)https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2091-13-25The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the origin in the images in Fig. 3b. The authors provided raw data to address these concerns, but the data contained image duplication between different groups and different repeats of the experiment. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.Authors Gongjun Tan, Guangrong Yan, Wenhua Mei and Faqing Tang have not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction notice. The Editor has not been able to obtain current email addresses for authors Yuejin Li, Na Liu, Damao Huang, Zhenlin Zhang, Zhengke Peng, Chaojun Duan and Xiaowei Tang.


PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) between January 2010 and December 2020 were extracted from Web of Science. Using Genderize.io, the gender of authors from their first names was estimated using a 75% threshold. The association between female prevalence in first and last authorship and journal was evaluated using a binary logistic regression, and odds ratios were estimated against a 50:50 reference on gender. In 266,739 publications, 43.3% of first authors and 26.7% of last authors were females. Across the ten-year period, female first authorship increased by 19.6% and last authorship by 3.2%. Among all journals, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors (45.7%) and PLoS Medicine of female last authors (32%), while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories (23.7% and 17.2%). First authors were less likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.05) except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases , where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different (p = 0.054). Last authors were not more likely to be females in all PLoS journals (p < 0.001). Overall, women still appear underrepresented as first authors in biomedical publications and their representation as last authors has severely lagged. Efforts towards gender equality in scholarly authorship will contribute to the representation of women in biomedical research and ensure that their potential is not lost.Women are generally underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). As scientific production reflects scholarly impact and participation in the scientific process, the number of journal publications forms a pertinent measure of academic productivity. This study examined the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author positions across multidisciplinary biomedical research. Publications from seven exemplar cross-specialty journals of the Public Library of Science ( The proportion of women who are engaged academically and professionally across the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has been increasing in recent decades . HoweverThere has also been considerable gender inequality in the authorship of scientific production and throughout the publication process itself. Evidence from a series of studies, have highlighted a significant underrepresentation of women in prominent author positions ,12,13,14A plethora of studies have already attempted to describe the overall publication trends of female authors across STEM but without addressing this in areas of interdisciplinary biomedical research . A majorAdvancement within the academic ladder is largely contingent on scientific production and scholarly impact. Widely available metrics pertained to academic productivity and scientific influence include the publication number of peer-reviewed research. In our study, we aimed to examine the prevalence and evolution of female representation in prominent author roles—first and last authorship—and determine whether quantifiable gender differences across multidisciplinary biomedical research, exist. To accomplish the purpose of our study, we focused as an example on publications from seven cross-specialty OA journals of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) between 2010 and 2020.We examined the prevalence of female first and last authors in publications from seven PLoS journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. Initially, we selected these as they offer a representation of an exemplar sample of multidisciplinary biomedical research because of their cross-speciality series of journals. Thereafter, as the journals operate on OA and thus, article processing charges apply to publishing, authorship trends observed here may reflect the contribution of grant-funded researchers and their inclusion. Lastly, focusing on a single publisher allows for horizontal comparisons to be made more appropriately since different publishers may have variable priorities for publishing different or specific types of studies.http://scientific.thomson.com/products/wos/ (accessed on 5 February 2021) to retrieve full bibliographic records of all peer-reviewed publications from each year in PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology, PLoS One, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogens, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. All types of publications were considered in our study and hence, our search on WoS was only limited to the aforementioned journal titles as search terms. No exclusion criteria were applied in our search strategy to avoid selection bias.We performed a literature search using the Web of Science (WoS) database ; Demografix ApS, Roskilde, Denmark) by determining the likelihood of association between their first names and a binary gender category. This gender prediction method utilises known genders collected from user profiles on major social networks. To assign names with a specific gender , we used a 75% probability threshold. Authors whose gender could not be determined based on their first names (classified as “Unknown”) were excluded from all further analyses.The gender of the first and last authors was predicted using the Genderize.io database . Statistical significance was established as Our initial search yielded 266,739 publications from seven cross-specialty PLoS journals, between 2010 and 2020. Among these, 262,122 publications were eligible for first-author gender prediction, with the remaining 4617 (1.8%) publications being omitted (non-listed authors (N = 292), single-named authors (N = 2), and authors with initials (N = 4323)). Similarly, 261,799 publications were suitable for last-author gender prediction and 4940 (1.9%) publications were excluded (non-listed authors (N = 292), single-named authors (N = 190), and authors with initials (N = 4458)). Ultimately, we were able to predict the gender of 211,404 (79.3%) first authors and 221,794 (86.1%) last authors. Of the first authors, 91,619 (43.3%) were female, while of the last authors, 59,208 (26.7%) were female.PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion of female first authors  and PLoS Medicine of female last authors  over the ten-year period, while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories   and female last authors  in 2020, while PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest proportion in these categories   . Further; 19.5%) .PLoS One (32.9%) and in female last authorship in PLoS Medicine (14.1%). The lowest change in female first authorship was in PLoS Biology (−1.9%) and in female last authorship in PLoS Genetics (2.3%)  .PLoS Pathogens (odds ratio (OR): 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70–0.99, p = 0.035), PLoS Genetics , PLoS Medicine , PLoS One , PLoS Biology , and PLoS Computational Biology ], except for PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases , where the odds of female authorship were not significantly different. By contrast, females had statistically significant lower odds for last authorship in all PLoS journals  ] .PLoS Computational Biology had the lowest total proportion in female first and last authorship over the ten-year period and in 2020, with overall less than a fourth of first authors and almost a fifth of last authors, as females. Nevertheless, our results showed a slow narrowing of the gender gap for first authors and last author positions. Indicative of this, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases had the greatest total proportion among first authors with almost a half as females, and PLoS Medicine among last authors with more than a third being females. Equally, female firth authorship increased highest, by a third, in PLoS One and female last authorship by less than a fifth in PLoS Medicine. Our findings highlighted a gender gap in first and last authorship across publications from seven OA cross-specialty PLoS journals in biomedical research, between 2010 and 2020. We demonstrated that less than a half of the first authors and almost a fourth of the last authors, were females. Likewise, female first authorship increased by 21.2% and last authorship by 7.9% across the ten-year period. Indeed, first and last authors were less likely to be females in the majority of PLoS journals. We have identified a continuous increase in the representation of women among first and last authors across most PLoS journals between 2010 and 2020. Although our data did not allow us to unveil the underlying mechanism of this change, our results consistently demonstrated that a gender gap in scientific authorship still exists, especially among last authors. While there are no prior studies examining gender authorship in PLoS journals, our findings are in line with previous reports that focused on different but relevant biomedical journals, pointing out an increasing trend in the prevalence of female first authorship, but with that, last authorship is yet to catch up. Specifically, a study which examined the gender distribution across the biosciences and within the entire JSTOR corpus highlighted a more pronounced decrease, specifically in the number of female last authors as opposed to that in first authors which was less severe .Multiple inter-connected explanations could likely underlie our observation. Firstly, there may be a “leaky pipeline” with each step up in the academic ladder, a phenomenon which has long been described and acknowledged by the scientific literature ,37,38. DPLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases and PLoS Computational Biology—have greatly opposing patterns in female representation across first and last authorship. To date, there are no previous studies looking at the prevalence of gender authorship in the field of neglected tropical diseases across the biomedical literature. However, reports have highlighted an underrepresentation of women in infectious diseases research. In a review examining gender parity in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, females constituted 32% of first authors and 22% of last authors between 2014 and 2017 [Our results also demonstrated that two prominent PLoS journals—and 2017 . Howeverand 2017 . Neverthand 2017 . Thus, iMoreover, there is ample literature on the unequal distribution between genders in STEM across all aspects of scientific and academic practice. Yet, there are only a few studies examining gender authorship in interdisciplinary fields such as computational biology and a lot more about its parent fields of biology and computer science. When looking in doctoral degrees awarded to women, computer science has the lowest share of recipients, while in biology, more than a half of degrees are held by women . Within Our study provided interesting insights about female dynamics in authorship among PLoS journals in biomedical research, yet methodological and conceptual limitations exist. Primarily, we inferred gender of authorship using the Genderize.io database which is based on user profiles from social networks, that may contain arbitrary words or characters which could have contributed to a less accurate gender estimation . SimilarOur study showed that women are underrepresented in seven cross-specialty PLoS journals and confirms previous studies done in other journal sets and disciplines. Although our findings highlighted a slow narrowing of an existing gap among female first authors, women’s representation as last authors has severely lagged behind. This reinforces the potential attrition of women in academic career advancement with probable barriers at the levels of research support, dedicated research time, or the publication process itself. Our study reinforced that we cannot yet disregard disparities in female authorship and hint that this matter warrants renewed attention. While proposing interventions towards gender equality was beyond the focus of our study, we should emphasise their importance in maximising the contribution of women in research and ensuring that their potential is not lost.


Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies.Given the concerns, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.The authors do not agree to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Leukemia cutis is a cutaneous manifestation of leukemia. Herein, we present a rare cutaneous manifestation of leukemia cutis in a patient with myeloid leukemia m5, characterized by hyperpigmented red‐to‐brown patches on face and upper trunk. To our knowledge, hyperpigmented patches secondary to leukemia cutis is rarely described in the literature. Leukemia cutis is a cutaneous manifestation of leukemia. Herein, we present a rare cutaneous manifestation of leukemia cutis in a patient with myeloid leukemia m5, characterized by hyperpigmented red‐to‐brown patches on face and upper trunk. To our knowledge, hyperpigmented patches secondary to leukemia cutis is rarely described in the literature. The patient presented with hyperpigmented patches on the face and upper trunk with ocular and oral mucosal changes upon examination. Further workup revealed patient having acute myeloid leukemia (AML‐M5), and skin biopsy showed infiltration with myeloblasts.23/L with neutrophil and lymphocyte differentiation , hemoglobin 10.5 g/dl, and platelet count of 72 × 103 μl.A 76‐year‐old man with no significant past medical history presented to our clinic with a 6 months skin hyperpigmentation and fatigue. The patient was treated with skin‐lightening and antisolar creams but with no improvement. Clinical examination showed brown to violet hyperpigmented patches on face and upper trunk. Mucosal examination showed violaceous plaques on the upper palate in addition to yellow sclera with red to purple patches on the inner aspect of both lower eyelids Figure . PhysicaTwo skin biopsies from face and chest were taken with differential diagnoses of angiosarcoma, lymphoma, and lichen planus. The result showed dense dermal multinodular perivascular and periadnexal infiltration with atypical mononucleated cells with IHC evidence consistent with leukemic dermal infiltration Figure . Immunoh3Patients with underlying hematologic malignancies can present with a diversity of non‐specific reactive skin lesions or specific infiltrates.In addition to usual typical skin manifestations, the recorded unusual manifestations of leukemia cutis were summarized in retrospective study in 2021 by Yung‐WeiChang, which included leonine faces, figurate cutaneous lesions, fingertip hypertrophy, erythema nodosum, guttate psoriasis, chronic paronychia, leukemic vasculitis, and Sister Mary Joseph's nodule.Our patient was complaining of hyperpigmented patches on the face and upper trunk from 6 months before presenting to our clinic, and unfortunately, the patches were treated as skin pigmentation.Involvement of skin can be seen in any leukemia subtype, but most commonly seen in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with monocytic or myelomonocytic and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and rarely in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), which can be indicative for blast transformation.The diagnosis of leukemia cutis is usually achieved by histological study and immunophenotyping.Currently, there is no specific treatment for leukemia cutis, and cutaneous eruption usually resolves following treatment of underlying leukemia.To our knowledge, hyperpigmented patches secondary to leukemia cutis are rarely described in the literature. Dermatologists could have an important role in diagnosis of internal diseases including leukemia. Postponing the diagnosis of leukemia cutis means delaying the diagnosis of the underlying leukemia, which lead to poor prognosis. Early diagnosis of leukemia cutis can lead to better outcomes and may direct to an underlying malignancy.NN was involved in the diagnosis and management of the patients and has been responsible for the clinical part of the manuscript. ZAK reported the result of histopathological evaluation. NN, RD, and AK did literature review and drafted the manuscript. NN was responsible for final editing of the manuscript and coordinated the study. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images.


This article  has beenPLOS Genetics Editors issue this Expression of Concern.PLOS will be investigating these concerns in accordance with COPE guidance and journal policies. Meanwhile, the


Retraction Note: BMC Pediatrics 22, 139 (2022)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03210-8The authors have retracted this paper because it has been previously published by an overlapping author group . The aut


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that the western blotting data shown in Figs. 3F, 4A and 5A, and several of the panels shown for the cell invasion assays in Figs. 4C and 5C, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


This article has been retracted: In July of 2020, the Academic Committee of Jiangsu Normal University launched an investigation into this paper and requested that the authors provide the original experimental records and data for verification. To date, however, the authors have failed to provide the requested documents. The committee has concluded that this paper displays signs of academic fraud. In light of this, the paper is retracted. The University and Oncotarget thank the Pubpeer community for raising the concerns.100227-100241. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.22151Original article: Oncotarget. 2017; 8:100227–100241.


Secondly, in the Results section, ‘Mutation frequency of each gene distributed in 4 biological categories’ subsection, p. 2220, right-hand column, second paragraph, line 17, the sentence written here should have read as follows: ‘The group with the positive expression of RET included 28.9% (26/90) of the patients, and 4 of these patients were defined as high expression’.Subsequently to the publication of the above article, the authors have realized that a couple of clerical errors were made when writing the article, and wish to correct these errors in a corrigendum statement. First, in the Materials and methods section on p. 2216, the final sentence of the ‘Oncology Reports for allowing them this opportunity to publish a corrigendum, and apologize to the readership of the journal for any inconvenience caused.The authors are grateful to the Editor of


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Figs. 2C and 4D were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


There was an error in the original publication . Some wrA correction has been made to the following sections:Abstract:“Most (76.6%) had BEWE (basic erosive wear examination) of 0–2.”Results, Paragraph 3:“Large proportion of conscripts examined, 38.1%, had the first signs of erosive tooth wear (BEWE 1–2) visible in their dentition.”Discussion, Paragraph 3:“On the other hand, the results suggest also that the reason for third molar extraction was more often something other indication than the need for restorative treatment.”In the original publication, there was a mistake in the legend for Table 4. The correct legend appears below.Table 4. Distribution of BEWE score values.In the original publication, there was a mistake in The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors have examined their original data, and realize that errors were inadvertently made during the assembly of these figure parts. The authors have reassembled


The authors regret that an incorrect version of 37 The peak at 531.3 eV is attributed to oxygen in absorbed water, and the binding energy at 532.2 eV is attributed to the oxygen atoms on defect atoms.37” This text should read, “The binding energy at 530.1 eV and 531.3 eV corresponds to the oxygen atom coordinated with a metal atom (Sn–O–Sn) and (Sn–O–Zn),37 and the binding energy at 532.2 eV is attributed to the hydrated species O–H.36”The authors regret that there was an error in the text in lines 5–10 in the right column on page 31987 of the original article. The text originally read, “The binding energy at 530.1 eV and 531.3 eV belongs to the oxygen atom coordinated with a metal atom (Sn–O–Sn) and (Sn–O–Zn), respectively.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


After this article  was publSpecifically, due to data labelling and missing information issues, the ‘IAT’ data reflect intra-arterial (IA) treatment rather than the more restricted treatment type of IA-thrombolysis. Further investigation of the dataset revealed that only 24 individuals in the study population received IA-thrombolysis, instead of N = 216 as was reported in [Furthermore, due to the small size of the IA-thrombolysis-positive group, the dataset is not sufficiently powered to address the research question.In light of the above concerns, the authors retract this article.All authors agree with retraction.


They were compound heterozygous for p.Arg1472Glu and c.3434del p.Lys1145fs∗7. However c.3434del p.Lys1145fs∗7 was noted as p.Leu1145fs∗7 in Table S1 and the supplemental text. This has now been corrected, and the authors regret the error.


Aging Cell, 2021;20:e13343. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13343Fei Han, Li Yin, Xiao Jiang, Xi Zhang, Ning Zhang, Jun‐tang Yang, Wei‐ming Ouyang, Xiang‐lin Hao, Wen‐bin Liu, Yong‐sheng Huang, Hong‐qiang Chen, Fei Gao, Zhong‐tai Li, Qiao‐nan Guo, Jia Cao, Jin‐yi Liu, Foxl2” and “Rec8” has been mislabelled with an opposite place in the histograms of quantitative PCR in Figure 5(b).In the published version of Han, F., et al. (2021), the authors noticed that the two genes “The corrected figure is shown below.The authors apologize for this error.


In the published publication , there w7 Department of Food and Nutrition, Faculty of Human Sciences and Design, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi ArabiaThe 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 Res 39, 116 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-020-01606-xWithin Figure 3D, the panels (OS-RC-2 vs sh-CCDC50#1) and (OS-RC-2 vs sh-CCDC50#2) overlap.Figure 3H contained a panel (CCDC50-S vs whole) with missing sections within the image.An incorrect panel (OS-RC-2 vs sh-HnRNP A1+CCDC50-FL) was provided for supplementary figure 5B.The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article because of the following concerns:The data reported in this article are therefore unreliable.Guoliang Sun and Hua Xu agree to this retraction. Hui Zhou has agreed to this retraction but not to the wording of this retraction notice. Ke Chen, Jin Zeng, Yangjun Zhang, Libin Yan, Weimin Yao, Junhui Hu, Tao Wang, Jinchun Xing, Kefeng Xiao, Lily Wu and Zhangqun Ye have not responded to any correspondence from the publisher about this retraction.


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “Targeting Inhibition of Notch1 Signaling Pathway on the Study of Human Gastric Cancer Stem Cells with Chemosensitization [Following an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


A. Rogers  The authors regret the omission of the following conflict of interest statement.Dr Martin J. T. Reaney is the founder of, and has an equity interest in, Prairie Tide Diversified Inc. . Dr Youn Young Shim is a Market Consultant for PTD in Korea. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Saskatchewan in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Xenopus laevis  determined from samples purified from frozen human plasma . The auts laevis . In thess laevis A and B as laevis C. FurtheApproximately 75% of A2M molecules in the samples were not native according to the authors, and this percentage increases if the 7O7M and 7O7L structures are also nonnative. In contrast, the typical percentage of nonnative A2M in circulation is less than 1% , as nonn


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 37, 49 (2018)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-018-0717-3Fig. 3a appears to overlap with Fig. 4a in ;Fig. 7g Cyclin D1 lanes 3 and 4 appear highly similar to Fig. 9d E-cadherin lanes 2 and 3 in [The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the corresponding author's request. After publication, the authors became aware that data from other projects were included in the figures, resulting in image overlap between this article and previous publications from other authors. Specifically:Additionally, parts of images in Figs. 2d, 3a, 7g and 8f have subsequently been used in [The authors have therefore lost confidence in the data presented in this article.Author Kangsheng Tu has stated on behalf of all co-authors that they agree to this retraction.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77280-y, published online 20 November 2020Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article. Following publication, concerns were raised about the rationale for the approach presented and the underlying reasoning. A post-publication review of the authors' mathematical arguments revealed a lack of clarity in the terms presented and inferences that are not adequately justified. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.Muhammad Aslam does not agree to this retraction.


The authors regret their oversight in allowing this error to be included in the published paper, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The revised version of


Retraction: Cancer Cell Int (2020) 20:465 10.1186/s12935-020-01493-4The Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication it was noted that there were irregularities in Figs. 3I and 5H that have led to a loss of confidence in the integrity of the results of this article. Guan Quanlin does not agree to this retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “The Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine Combined with Huangqi Tablets in the Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy” [ropathy”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree with the retraction.


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “Effects of Incontro, Alleanza, Responsabilita, Autonomia Intervention Model Combined with Orem Self-Care Model and the Use of Smart Wearable Devices on Perceived Stress and Self-Efficacy in Patients after Total Hip Arthroplasty” [oplasty”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


The dexamethasone concentration was stated 10 μM while it should be 1 μM. The correct sentence should read as follows: “Adipocytic differentiation was performed during 6 days using a differentiation cocktail containing dexamethasone , insulin , and isobutylmethylxanthine .”The authors state that the correction does not affect the results and conclusions of the paper.


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “Tanshinone Protects against Spinal Cord Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Inhibiting JNK Activity” [ctivity”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Due to an Editorial Office error during processing, a number of male and female symbols were incorrectly shown in the pdf version of the manuscript . In partA correction has been made to Abstract, Section 3: paragraph 1, Table 1 (cell in first line and third column), Section 3.2: paragraph 1, Section 3.3.1: paragraph 1, Table 3 , Section 4.4: paragraph 2.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 were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that Figs. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in this paper all contained anomalous features that could not readily be explained by chance alone or through the coincidental placement of data. Consequently, the Editor of


Retraction Note: Arthritis Res Ther 15, R120 (2013)https://doi.org/10.1186/ar4300Partial image overlap in Fig 3A and C;Concerns about band similarity within Western blots in Figs 5A,B and 6A,B;The actin bands in 5B appear very similar to the ones published earlier in Fig. 5B in  by the sThe Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, Fig 2 was corrected because images in it had been mislabelled . HoweverThe authors were unable to produce raw data on request. The Editors have lost confidence in the integrity of the data in this article. None of the authors agree to this retraction.


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Analysis of Clinical Effect after Treatment of Patients with Femoral Neck Fracture Using Total or Hemihip Arthroplasty” [oplasty”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


Correction: Mol Cancer 18, 82 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-019-1016-0C. We inadvertently used an image for p62 in ‘GBC-SD/Dox Lv-shRNA+Dox’ from the original images for ATG5 in ‘GBC-SD/Dox Lv-control+Dox’ as we assembled Fig. 8C. We confirm that the mistake would not affect the results or conclusions of the paper. The image of p62 in ‘GBC-SD/Dox Lv-shRNA+Dox’ has now been replaced with the correct one.In the originally published version of this article , after r8


Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity has retracted the article titled “LATS2 Deletion Attenuates Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury by Promoting Mitochondrial Biogenesis” [genesis”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience has retracted the article titled “SIRT2-KLF4 Interactions are Critical for Myeloma Survival and Migration” [gration”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Retraction note to: Mol Cancer 16, 110 (2017)10.1186/s12943-017-0677-9.The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding partial image overlap in Figs.1, 2 and 5–7. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Yunhui Liu has stated on behalf of all co-authors that they do not agree to this retraction.


Open Biol. 10, 20170247. (Published online 1 January 2017) (https://doi.org/10.1098/rsob.160247)Following an investigation, we have found that in figures 4, 5 and 6 of the manuscript, there appears to be multiple duplications, re-positioning and alterations to the western blot images. In further review of the images and the raw data supplied by the authors, we are unable to verify the conclusions of the paper or validity of the data.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsob.200165.The image integrity standards and policies for the journal can be found here: Open BiologyProf. Jon Pines FRS Editor-in-Chief, Open Biology Editorial Team


The authors have identified some minor errors in the published version of the


Scientific Data 10.1038/s41597-021-00960-5, published online 13 July 2021.Correction to: The following errors were present in the original Data DescriptorThe colours in Figure 2 on the stacked area did not correspond to the correct agricultural activities on the legend.Table S11 (supplementary information) contained incorrect numbers for pesticide production (column 8) and the total emissions (column 9)Figure S1 (supplementary information) contained incorrect numbers for pesticide production and the total emissions, and incorrect colours on the stacked area.All aspects have been corrected in the pdf and HTML versions of the paper, and the supplementary information file.Updated supplementary file


J Cancer 2022; 13(6):1895-1904. doi:10.7150/jca.60269) has been retracted due to concerns on the originality of images. Although the authors insist on the authenticity and repeatability of their data, the editors decided to withdraw this article. The authors have been contacted and they expressed apology to the readers for any negligence and mistake in this paper.This article (MiR-211-5p Inhibits the Biological Behaviors of Colorectal Cancer via SPARC-Related Growth Factor Pathways.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Figs. 2D and 4D, and the western blotting data shown in Fig. 3C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors who were based at different institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published elsewhere, prior to its submission to


The updated figure 2b is shown below:The authors apologize for the error and any inconvenience it may have caused.


Sci., 2020, 11, 1216–1225, https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC05586J.Correction for ‘Expanding medicinal chemistry into 3D space: metallofragments as 3D scaffolds for fragment-based drug discovery’ by Christine N. Morrison  The authors regret that in the original article, inhibitory values reported for some metallofragments were incorrect. Unfortunately, DMSO stock solutions of reportedly active ferrocene-based metallofragments were found to decompose in the presence of light, which resulted in inaccurate inhibition values. The authors maintain that the core conclusions of the paper are accurate and the utility of three-dimensional metal complexes for fragment-based drug discovery has merit.N) failed to reproduce our original inhibition results for the class A metallofragments using freshly prepared stocks, indicating a problem with the materials used in the original study.In the original article, ‘class A’ metallofragments are comprised of ferrocene derivatives . Some ofN endonuclease at an inhibitor concentration of 200 μM  inhibition against PAf 200 μM  and 2. Hf 200 μM , with thf 200 μM  not showλ > 280 nm) in wet DMSO to produce a monocyclopentadienyliron cation, the anionic ligand, and free cyclopentadiene.1 Suspecting issues with photostability, we dissolved several of the ferrocenyl fragments in DMSO-d6, exposed them to ambient room light (fluorescent light bulb), and monitored stability by NMR. Indeed, photoinstability was confirmed by the observance of free cyclopentadienyl peaks appearing in the 1H NMR spectrum  proved stable in DMSO and class A metallofragments were stored as DMSO stocks at −80 °C, but were not consistently protected from light. As noted above, many of the derivatives in class A contain a ferrocenyl carbonyl motif. It has been previously reported that ferrocenyl ketones can undergo photoaquation  as a positive control.2 Fortunately, these experiments largely reproduced our original findings. Although several fragments showed slightly greater activity upon re-evaluation  binding data. Furthermore, the hit rate against each target is likely lower than reported, with PAN having an adjusted hit rate of ∼28% (20/71).Based on these findings, the authors regret that the inhibitory data associated with class A metallofragments are incorrect, likely because of photodecomposition of these ferrocene derivatives. To confirm if other classes of metallofragments were correctly reported, a representative member of each class was evaluated against PAThe authors maintain that three-dimensional metallofragments represent a useful new line of inquiry for FBDD and our ongoing studies seek to further test this hypothesis. The core message of our original study – the ability of metallofragments to be useful scaffolds for FBDD that occupy hard-to-access three-dimensional chemical space – remains unchanged. However, as demonstrated by our error, the authors acknowledge that metallofragments may pose unique challenges that must be carefully considered and controlled for when using them in FBDD campaigns.The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank the readers who alerted them to the concerns regarding the inhibitory activities and allowed them to reinvestigate. Both the authors and the Royal Society of Chemistry appreciate their support.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction: Journal of Translational Medicine 2008, 6:27https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-6-27Two pairs of bands appear highly similar in Fig. 5a—MSTO C CycD1 (CTRL 3 h and 6 h) and P + C Actin (CTRL 6 h and 24 h).A number of bands appear highly similar in Fig. 6b P + C Actin.Also in Fig. 6b, NCI P p21 bands (CTRL 6 h and 24 h) appear highly similar to P + C p21 bands (CTRL 3 h and 6 h).All NCI Actin bands appear to be highly similar in Figs. 5a and 6b.NCI C Actin bands in Figs. 5a and 6b appear to be highly similar but rotated 180 degrees, with the same bands representing different groups.In Fig. 6b NCI blots, some backgrounds appear inconsistent and contain unexpected breaks or changes between bands.The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article [1]. After publication, concerns were raised regarding potential issues in the western blot images presented in the figures. Specifically:As the article was published in 2008, the authors are unable to provide the raw data used to produce these figures. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Alfonso Baldi does not agree to this retraction. Angela Nebbioso and Lucia Altucci have not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction. Simona Menegozzo has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction. The Publisher has not been able to obtain a current email address for author Alessandra Verdina, Irene Cardillo, Rossella Galati and Ada Sacchi.


The authors regret the omission of one of the funding bodies in the Acknowledgements: Foundation of Science and Technology Department of Jilin Province (No. 20170623027TC to JJ). The corrected list of funding bodies is shown below:This work was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFA0505300 to HW), NSFC , and Foundation of Science and Technology Department of Jilin Province (No. 20170623027TC to JJ).The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In the paper


Estimated CRS burden in all scenarios should be 3 times greater than indicated.The authors regret age-specific fertility rates were incorrectly applied when determining burden of congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Annual fertility rates, averaged over 3 years, were used as rate-Corrected scales for the x-axis in Figs. 3 and 4 should be 0–6 (instead of 0–2 as depicted). Corrected scale for the y-axis in Fig. 5a should be 0–3 (instead of 0–1 as depicted), and the corrected scale for the x-axis in Fig. 5b should be 0–12 (instead of 0–4 as depicted).Fig. 3:Fig. 4:Fig. 5:The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


J Cell Mol Med. 2021; 25: 2025–2039. doi:10.1111/jcmm.16096.Retraction: Yang, C, Gu, Z, Ding, R, et al. Long non‐coding RNA MEG3 silencing and microRNA‐214 restoration elevate osteoprotegerin expression to ameliorate osteoporosis by limiting TXNIP. wileyonlinelibrary.com) has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on concerns raised by the authors and allegations raised by a third party. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid.The above article published online on 03 January 2021 in Wiley Online Library (


The editors reached out to the authors to request the original data. Per journal policy, the editors, at their discretion, may request deposition of any or all original data files for examination by the reviewers and/or editors. As a result of the authors’ failure to provide these data—in violation of journal policy—and the allegations of fraud, the editors feel that findings of the manuscript cannot be relied upon. All authors have been informed.


Arg and ATE1 overlooked the citation of the original work from where it was adapted [x]. The missed citation [x] is, therefore, clarified in the corrected legends (below) as reference [The authors wish to make the following corrections to the original publication . In the eference . The corThe 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.


The authors also regret any inconvenience that this mistake may have caused.The corrected version of


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Analysis of Multifactor-Driven Myopia Disease Modules to Guide Personalized Treatment and Drug Development” [lopment”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


The authors regret the error in 1 usingμ,ν = x,y,z, fni,mj,μ is the μth component of the force on vertex i belonging to particle n from vertex j belonging to particle m, Rmj,ni,ν is νth component of the separation vector from the center of mass of particle n to the contact point between vertex i on particle n and vertex j on particle m. The pressure is defined as . We have verified that We calculate the Love stress tensor under periodic boundary conditionThe Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Ethics approval was required and approved for Australian study and each contributing country was responsible for ethics to collect feed intake data.The animal ethics statement was missing from this paper. The following statement should have been included:


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data. The images in the article were screened by an image integrity expert. Images published in the article have also been published in two other papers, one by the same authors1 but another by a different set of authors.2The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this The left and centre panels of Fig. 2A represent different sections of the same image. Furthermore, the same image is also duplicated in ref. RSC Advances article.The right panel in Fig. 2A and the left panel in Fig. 2B are identical to images published in ref. Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are not reliable.Qun Liang does not agree with this retraction. The other authors were informed but have not responded to any correspondence regarding the retraction.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, th January 2021Date: 19


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Proteomics reveals molecular changes in insomnia patients with more dreams” [ dreams”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree to the retraction.


In Figure We sincerely apologize for any confusion caused by our negligence and this unintentional error. The authors confirm that the corrections made in this erratum do not affect the original conclusions.


This protocol describes the different methods to collect and preserve bark and ambrosia beetles, detailing collecting tools, recording relevant data, and optimizing step-by-step methods to extract beetles from twigs, branches, bark, and trunks. It elaborates on trapping techniques, tools, lures, baits, and beetle preservation. The main rule of manual collecting is to not attempt to pry the insect out of the wood or bark, but instead, remove the wood/bark away from the beetle: gently and systematically. The main rule of trapping is that there is no general attractant; instead, attractants and traps should reflect the ecology of the targeted beetle taxa. Euwallacea fornicatus species complex has caused significant impacts to orchards and natural forests around the world [Insect sampling and insect collections are some of the most important components of entomological research and teaching. However, certain taxa, particularly small wood borers, are challenging to sample. Bark and ambrosia beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae and Platypodinae) are some of the smallest and most common insects in natural, urban, and commercial forests. While the vast majority breed in dead or dying tissues and are harmless, some species have caused devastating damage across within both native and introduced range. Just in the last decades, more than 300 million redbay trees have been killed by laurel wilt , millionhe world .Bark beetle sampling is an essential part of integrated management programs, including beetle surveillance and monitoring by government agencies. For example, the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS) by the USDA APHIS, which conducts national and state surveys, together with the Forest Service’s Early Detection and Rapid Response program (EDRR), are responsible for post-introduction detection of pests . HoweverContemporary biobanks are increasingly focused on collecting and storing the specimen with its context . In the Bark and ambrosia beetle species are distinguished by small and subtle morphological differences –15. TherAlso of increasing importance has been the collecting of high quality samples for DNA studies. Advancements in molecular biology techniques have benefited numerous research fields related to forest health, including phylogenetics and systematics, invasion ecology, and forest pest diagnostics , 17. MolDespite extensive treatment of wood boring insects in literature on collecting and preserving insects, little is mentioned regarding manual extraction from wood samples . SuccessHere we present a protocol to collect bark and ambrosia beetles, with step-by-step guidelines to obtain high quality samples. It describes the different methods to collect and preserve bark ambrosia beetles, detailing collecting tools, relevant data, and optimized methods to extract beetles from twigs, branches, bark, and trunks. Moreover, it elaborates on trapping techniques, tools, lures, baits, and beetle preservation.https://www.protocols.io/workspaces/protocols-bark-beetle-mycobiome). Bark Beetle Mycobiome is a global research community reinvigorating the science of bark beetle-fungus symbiosis [This protocol is part of a repository hosted on Protocols.io, as part of the public workspace ‘Bark Beetle Mycobiome (BBM) research coordination network’ Click here for additional data file.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper :E was mistakenly referred to as in emulsion form, as below:AS01E) [40]. The adjuvant in this vaccine, AS01, consists of a mixture of the TLR4 ligand, MPLA, together with the saponin fraction QS21 in a liposomal or emulsion formulation [41].One of the most advanced subunit vaccines, M72:AS01, was recently shown to have 54% efficacy in HIV-negative individuals with latent TB when administered intramuscularly in emulsion form  [40]. The adjuvant in this vaccine, AS01, consists of a mixture of the TLR4 ligand, MPLA, together with the saponin fraction QS21 in a liposomal formulation [41].One of the most advanced subunit vaccines, M72:AS01, was recently shown to have 54% efficacy in HIV-negative individuals with latent TB when administered intramuscularly (M72:AS01The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readers by these changes and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


DOI: 10.1039/C5RA11545KRetraction of ‘Facile fabrication of water-dispersible AgInS They informed us that “Rijun Gui has confirmed that he independently completed the experimental research before he joined Qingdao University. Without their knowledge and prior notice, he signed the names of irrelevant researchers  in his paper and added the Funding numbers of the irrelevant researchers in his papers without authorization. Rijun Gui confirmed that these irrelevant researchers did not participate in experimental researches reported in his paper and they did not provide financial support. They have no contribution to the paper.” They concluded that “the names of the irrelevant researchers without contribution are required to be deleted from the authorship of the paper, and their funding numbers without providing financial support are required to be deleted from the “Acknowledgements”.” The corrected authorship list and affiliations for this paper are as follows:aRijun Gui*aSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, P. R. China, email: guirijun@163.comThe corrected Acknowledgements for this paper are as follows:This work was financially supported by the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Shanghai (13R21413800).RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.(2) The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this The TEM image in Fig. 2a contains duplications of the same particles within the image, which indicates that it has been manipulated.et al., but representing different materials.1The TEM image in Fig. 2c duplicates data from another publication by Tan et al., but representing different materials.2The TEM image in Fig. 2d duplicates data from another publication by Tan Given the number and significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.Rijun Gui requested to retract this article due to the incorrect authorship, but opposes the wording in this retraction notice.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, st September 2020Date: 21


DOI: 10.1039/D1RA05703K.Correction for ‘Sample preparation considerations for surface and crystalline properties and ecotoxicity of bare and silica-coated magnetite nanoparticles’ by Lyubov Bondarenko  The authors regret that the name of one of the authors  was shown incorrectly in the original article. The corrected author list is as shown above.35 or oxygen-sensitive nanoparticles (NPs) such as iron oxides.” This sentence should read, “Not all of these methods can be applied to “soft” nanoparticles 35 or oxygen-sensitive nanoparticles (NPs) such as iron oxides”.The authors regret that there was an error in the sentence in line 28 in the right column on page 32227 of the original article. The text originally read, “Not all of these methods cannot be applied to “soft” nanoparticles The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


All the authors agree to the publication of this Corrigendum, are grateful to the Editor of


Correction to: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (2022) 49:1386–1406https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05624-5The authors regret that there is an error in their original article. They found a small mistake in the abbreviations, because the meaning of ESTRO and EORTC has been interchanged. It says:-EORTC = European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-ESTRO = European Organisation for Research and Treatment of CancerBut it should be:-ESTRO = European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-EORTC = European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “The Construction and Development of App Application Platform for Public Information Products of Urban Grand Media in the Context of Artificial Intelligence” [ligence”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


The original version of our paper contained an error. In Figure All authors agree to the erratum and confirm that the corrections made in this erratum do not affect the original conclusions. The authors apologize for any inconvenience that the errors may have caused.


On the first publication of MCO273, the authors noted that images of SGC‐7901 group in Figure


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


Retraction Note: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18, 351 (2018)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1989-5The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised around p-values in Table 2, as well as the sample size and dates when the study was conducted. The authors provided raw data which did not fully correspond to the data presented in the article. They also proposed to correct the discrepancies, but some of the proposed corrections were also found to contain errors. The Editor has, therefore, lost confidence in the validity of the paper's findings. None of the authors agree to this retraction.


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data. The images in the article were screened by an image integrity expert. All the western blot bands have a very regular, oval shape that are unlikely to be genuine. Furthermore, the western blots and many other features of the article were found to be unexpectedly similar to western blots and features in a number of other papers with no overlapping authors.The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this The authors were asked to provide the raw data for this article, but did not respond. Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the findings presented in this paper are not reliable.The authors have been informed but have not responded to any correspondence regarding the retraction.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, th January 2021Date: 15


Jadhav,  The authors regret the omission of the following conflict of interest statement.Dr Martin J. T. Reaney is the founder of, and has an equity interest in, Prairie Tide Diversified Inc. . Dr Youn Young Shim is a Market Consultant for PTD in Korea. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by the University of Saskatchewan in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


RSC Advances paper and concerns about discrepancies in the data and results presented in the article.The Royal Society of Chemistry has been contacted by the President of the Amity Science Technology & Innovation Foundation, Amity University Uttar Pradesh regarding an investigation into the authorship of this (1) The investigation by Amity University Uttar Pradesh has concluded that Nitesh Malhotra and Nidhi Chauhan should not have been included as co-authors because they only made a minimal contribution to the study. Their contributions were that Nitesh Malhotra provided the leviteracetum drug and Nidhi Chauhan provided the multiwalled carbon nanotubes.Aside from the institutional investigation, the corresponding author has also confirmed to us that C. S. Pundir should not have been included as a co-author as their contribution was to check the language in the manuscript.The contributions of Nitesh Malhotra, Nidhi Chauhan and C. S. Pundir should have been acknowledged in the article, but did not justify authorship.The corrected authorship list and affiliation for this paper are as follows:aJagriti Narang*aAmity Institute of Nanotechnology, AMITY University, Noida, India. E-mail: jags_biotech@yahoo.co.in; Tel: +9811792572.RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.(2) I, Jagriti Narang, the corresponding author hereby wholly retract this The TEM images in Fig. 1a and SEM images in Fig. 2b and c each contain repetitions of a number of distinct shapes within the images.The XRD data in Fig. 1b contains repetitions of the same peaks within the traces. The peak at 11° in the GNF trace has been duplicated in the MWCNT/GNF trace at 11 and 24° and in the MWCNT trace at 24°. In addition, the peak at 45° in the MWCNT trace has been duplicated at 78° in the MWCNT trace and at 70° and 78° in the FTO trace.The investigation by Amity University Uttar Pradesh has recommended that the paper should be retracted.Signed: Jagriti Narang.RSC Advances.Retraction endorsed by Andrew Shore, Executive Editor,


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-019-13388-8, published online 16 December 2019Retraction of: The authors are retracting the Article due to several issues with figure assembly and data integrity. Nanoparticles appear to be duplicated within the same image in Figure 1a. In addition, there are unexplained anomalies in Supplementary Figures 1, 2, 24, and 36. These issues undermine confidence in the integrity of the study and its conclusions. All authors agree with this retraction.


We thank Tsai and Liu  for theiTo say that the study should be more quantitative negates that prospective sleep logging is both quantitative and the consensus tool for the field . What maThis seems a pertinent time to remind the authors of the letter  that the