Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 2C, lanes 2 and 6 in the left Beclin 1 panel appear similar.In Fig 2C, the left and right GAPDH panels appear similar despite representing different conditions.In Fig 4A Beclin 1 panel, when levels are adjusted to visualize the background, there appears to be vertical discontinuity between lanes 1 and 2.In the Beclin 1 panel in Fig 4C, when levels are adjusted, there are similar patterns in the background above the bands in lanes 1 and 5. In addition, in lane 5, the signal around the band appears to be discontinuous with the overall background of the panel.The L-02 cell line used as a control for healthy human hepatic tissue was found to be potentially contaminated by HeLa cells in a later study [The authors stated that the original, underlying data for the Western blots in this article are no longer available; however, they provided versions of the images that were cropped wider than the published panels.PLOS ONE Editors remain concerned about this figure.Regarding the concerns in Fig 2, the authors stated that the bands in lanes 2 and 6 were similar but were not identical. The authors stated that the similarities observed in the GAPDH panel were caused by an error during figure preparation and provided a replacement panel. In the absence of raw data, the The authors stated the vertical discontinuity in Fig 4A may be caused by a smear on the Western blot film. In the absence of original image data, these issues cannot be clarified.PLOS ONE Editors remain concerned about the issues involving this figure.Regarding the Beclin 1 panel in Fig 4C, several repeating patterns were observed in the background of the uncropped panel provided by the authors, in addition to the concerns raised in lanes 1 and 5 of the published panel. The authors stated that the discontinuous background was potentially caused by blemishes on the original film. The The authors stated that they were not aware of the potential contamination issues with the L-02 cell line at the time of this study, and they no longer have a sample of these cells to investigate. They commented that the morphology of L-02 and HeLa cells in this study was not similar as shown in Figs 1 and 3C of [PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability of these data, the YFP did not agree with the retraction. YHS, ZBD, JZ, SJQ, BH, CYG. HY, WRL, and JF either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Maternal vitamin D intake and BMI during pregnancy in relation to child’s growth and weight status from birth to 8 years: a large national cohort study. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048980. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048980Amberntsson A, Papadopoulou E, Winkvist A, The authors want to alert the readers on the updates done for tables 2-3 in the published version.


Moreover, unexpected similarities were identified comparing between a pair of the flow cytometric assay data panels in Fig. 4 on p. 3490, considering that these data were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments.Molecular Medicine Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


Retraction: Salari et al. Diabetol Metab Syndr _#####################_10.1186/s13098-021-00733-5The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the reliability of the reported data, which the authors addressed by a Correction . HoweverAuthors Kamran Mansouri and Masoud Mohammadi disagree with this retraction. The other authors have not responded to correspondence regarding this retraction.


They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors were able to re-examine their original data files, and realize how the errors were made during the assembly of this figure. The revised version of


Following the publication and Correction of this article , 2, concIn Fig 3a, the SM-Only Day3 panel appears to partially overlap with the SM-Only Day14 panel.In Fig 4e, the SM-Only panel appears to partially overlap with the SM-GFP panel when rotated 180°.In Fig 7a, the SM-Only panel and the GFP panels appear more similar than would be expected from independent results.In Fig 8a, there appear to be repetitive elements within each panel, as well as repetitive elements between panels.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.The corresponding author provided a response and underlying data for Figs 3, 4, 7, and 8, but these did not resolve the concerns raised with the article. In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the SLR, CYZ, ZHS, LHC, XFH, HJD, and BL either did not respond directly or could not be reached. XLW and XJL responded but expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with the editorial decision.


The diagnosis of leukemia in a child is a difficult moment for the therapist and for the parents. Nevertheless, this moment is crucial and determining in the course of care and the therapeutic relationship.Determine the quality of diagnosis announcement among mothers of children with leukemia.A cross-sectional study was conducted at Aziza Othmana hospital department of haematology in Tunisia between June and July 2021.We have questioned the mothers about the announcement of the diagnosis: the space frame, the time provided and the availability of the doctor.We included 31 mothers, their middle age was 41 years old. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia is the most frequent type of cancer in our sample (94%).According to 4 mothers (13.3%), the diagnosis of leukemia was not announced before the start of treatment.The quality of the diagnostic announcement was judged to be good in 40% of cases (n=12), average in 12.7% (n=8) and mediocre in 20% of mothers (n=6).The space frame of the announcement was perceived as appropriate with respecting confidentiality in 18 mothers (69.2%).The time provided for the announcement was considered sufficient for 17 mothers (65.4%).The doctor who announced the diagnosis was described as available by 69.2% of the mothers and unavailable by 30.8% of the mothers.The quality of the diagnosis announcement amoung mothers of children with leukemia in our context is not optimal. Oncologists must be trained in diagnostic announcement and must be aware of the importance of this moment in the subsequent therapeutic relationship.None Declared


The journal retracts the May 12, 2021, article cited above.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 about the validity of the data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Oncology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.The authors agreed with this retraction.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Waiting Time and Patient Satisfaction in a Subspecialty Eye Hospital Using a Mobile Data Collection Kit: Pre-Post Quality Improvement Intervention.”In this paper , the autIn the Abstract and Methods sections, what does “ODK” stand for?I suggest moving the problem description to the study rational as the first paragraph of this section.In the methods section, the contents related to the data collection need to be expanded to include the type of data that were collected by data collectors.The methods of data collection should be explained clearly.In the Results section (page 11), the authors said, “The first 7 changes were implemented, which includes…” and “Five of the originally proposed changes could not be implemented due to…” I think it is better if the authors either change the wording of the sentences or provide a complete explanation of the all changes. Then, the authors can explain which strategy was implemented and which one was not implemented.Unintended Outcomes subsection), the authors noted the following: “…the intervention appeared to have affected women adversely…” This section needs further explanations about the possible reasons for such an unintended outcome.In the Results section (I am wondering whether all changes were implemented at the same time or they were implemented one by one. In case of the second approach, the impact of each strategy on changing waiting times and improving patient satisfaction could be investigated separately and compared with other strategies.What were the possible reasons for non-significant increase in patient satisfaction while the waiting time was improved?Strengths and Limitations section, the sample size was relatively small. However, they need to explain more why they did not reach a larger sample size. What were the main limitations?As the authors noted in the Multimedia appendices were not available to me.Any survey instruments or questionnaires used for measuring patient satisfaction need to be added to the manuscript.I appreciate the authors for their time and efforts to implement our suggestions. However, some issues need further attention.The Introduction section started with the problem description. This section usually comes later and after describing the background. Hence, the coherence of the paragraphs should be revised. Moreover, the current subheadings in the Introduction section seem unnecessary and the authors can remove or reduce them.Strengths and Limitations section.As the authors said, they implemented all the changes together. However, each strategy or change might have a different impact on changing waiting times and improving patient satisfaction, which was worth investigating. If the authors did not do so, it is better to add this point to the


There is an error in affiliation 1 for authors Yun Sun Lee, Jin-Kyung Kim, Jee Young Park, Nur Kholilatul Izzah, Hyun-Seung Park, and Tae-Jin Yang. The correct affiliation 1 is: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Plant Genomics and Breeding Institute, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.


Obviously, such actions must be based on sovereignty, the principle of human dignity, and fundamental rights provided for by law.Overall, the authors are totally in agreement that the scientific community has been working hard to come up with creative approaches to pesticide pollution reduction.The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


Correction to: European Journal of Nutrition (2022) 61:2517–2530 10.1007/s00394-022-02822-1The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The affiliation details for Authors’ Marina Liso and Marcello Chieppa were incorrectly given asInstitute of Research, National Institute of Gastroenterology “S. de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Italybut should have beenNational Institute of Gastroenterology S. De Bellis, IRCCS Research Hospital, Via Turi 27, 70013 Castellana Grotte, Italy


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-28906-9, published online 13 July 2018Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.1;In Fig 2C the “SiHa-23” group appears to partially overlap with Fig 2C “A19” group in2;In Fig 4D the “Fibulin-3 cDNA, HeLa-25” group appears to be rotated and partially overlaps with Fig 3C “U-2OS” group inIn Fig 8B the “N-cadherin” group  appears to partially overlap with Fig 8C “Vimentin” group .After publication of this Article it was brought to the Editors’ attention that some of the images appear to overlap with those in other published articles partially from the same author group, where the data is partially attributed to different samples. Specifically:The Editors reached out to the Authors to request raw data. The Authors provided the data which did not address the concerns. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results presented in this Article.Juan Li, Chen Qi, Xia Liu, Changzhong Li, and Jie Chen did not respond to the correspondence about this retraction. Min Shi did not state explicitly whether they agree to or disagree with this retraction.


There was a typographical error in the original publication . A correThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


For panel O, data were taken from other PCR experiments. While the authors have reproduced and confirmed the data for panel O, given the circumstances, they believe that the most responsible course of action is to retract the paper. The authors sincerely apologize to the scientific community for any inconvenience resulting from the publication and retraction of this manuscript.This article has been retracted at the request of the authors. This paper reported a role for Slit-Robo signaling in the control of axon guidance during peripheral nerve regeneration. The first author has admitted, orally and in writing, to the fabrication of data, unknown to other authors, and is solely responsible for this fabrication. Based on reports from the scientific community, the authors began an investigation of data and procedures in the paper. They concluded that the paper contains fabrications of data in Figure 2, panels K and O. For panel K, the image for Robo2 was copied from another publication by the first author (Figure 12 of Carr et al., 2017,


In the published publication, there was an error regarding the affiliation for “Tomoya Suzuki”. In addition to affiliation “2” should be “School of Medicine, Akita University, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita 0108543, Japan”. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated [


Biomaterials Research (2023) 27:6410.1186/s40824-023-00402-wThe authors regret to report the grant number “21871180” in the original article [1] should instead state “81872121”.


Tremor and Other Hyperkinetic Movements: 2019; 9(0). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/tohm.464.This article details a correction to: Depienne C, Ciura S, Trouillard O, Bouteiller D, Leitão E, Nava C, et al. Association of Rare Genetic Variants in Opioid Receptors with Tourette Syndrome.  This is a correction to the article “Association of Rare Genetic Variants in Opioid Receptors with Tourette Syndrome” . The ack“The authors thank the French Association for Tourette Syndrome (AFSGT) for their generous financial support”.This correction was brought to the attention of the journal by the author Andreas Hartmann.The authors have no competing interests to declare.


Artemisia Extracts and Artemisinin-Based Antimalarials for COVID-19 Management: Could These Be Effective Antivirals for COVID-19 Treatment?” [The journal retracts the article “Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the Editorial Office regarding significant overlap with a previously published work  with a dMolecules, as well as the lack of methodology that differentiates the current results from previous publications. This article is therefore retracted.Adhering to our complaint’s procedure, an investigation was conducted by the Editorial Office and Editorial Board and confirmed the overlap, which included a number of identical sequences of references, abbreviations not commonly used in Molecules. This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal The authors disagree with this retraction.


In ‘Understanding multiple timescale adaptation as fractional differentiation’ subsection of the Results, there is an error in the equation on page 6. Please view the complete, correct equation here:Dαf(x)


I agree with the authors that oldhamite could have been involved as a transient phase in important geological processes [Oldhamite . ThisConflict of interest statement. None declared.


We believe that there were errors in the original experiment, resulting in the errors of experimental data. The relationship between ZEB1-AS1, BMP7, and miR216a-5p is uncertain”.The Editors requested the authors to provide additional information regarding the inconsistencies found in the study. However, the authors presented no further details on that issue. Considering the inaccurate data and experimental deviation detected, the Editors agreed with and endorsed the decision to retract the paper.The Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research had received authorization from all authors before the publication of the original paper.


In “Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson”  the authors noted two errors.1. The Authors Contributions section currently reads as:All authors contributed to the study conception; design; and acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. AR, PMG, AS, LAV, DLS, GPJ, and DWB were responsible for study conception or design. PMG, HHE, DLS, and MGA developed the interview guides. MM, AS, SD, and LPN conducted participant recruitment. PMG acted as the interview moderator and had either AR or MM assisting with data collection during testing. PMG, MM, JC, and SD abstracted the data from interview recordings. Data analysis was performed by PMG, MM, and AR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AR and PMG, with all authors reviewing the draft and providing critical feedback. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.And will be changed to:RR and DWB are co-senior authors and contributed equally.All authors contributed to the study conception; design; and acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. AR, PMG, AS, LAV, DLS, GPJ, and DWB were responsible for study conception or design. PMG, HHE, DLS, and MGA developed the interview guides. MM, AS, SD, and LPN conducted participant recruitment. PMG acted as the interview moderator and had either AR or MM assisting with data collection during testing. PMG, MM, JC, and SD abstracted the data from interview recordings. Data analysis was performed by PMG, MM, and AR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AR and PMG, with all authors reviewing the draft and providing critical feedback. All authors contributed to and approved the final manuscript.2. In the original article, the ORCID number for Petra Schultz was reported as follows:0000-0001-7337-1046And has been updated to:0000-0001-7949-9243The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on May 18, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Prevalence of active trachoma infection and associated factors post‐war resettled population in raya kobo districts, North East Ethiopia: A community‐based cross‐sectional study in 2022. F. Kebede, M. Jamal. Health Science Reports. 2023. 10.1002/hsr2.1486.]Retraction: [wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr Charles Young, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. The retraction has been agreed due to major overlap with a previously published article from the same group of authors.The above article, published online on 06 August 2023 in Wiley Online Library (


Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is an immunologically mediated condition seen in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. Because of the rarity of the disease, nonspecific presentation, and lack of clinicopathological correlation, its diagnosis is often delayed and prompt treatment is deferred, with increased mortality. Extensive acute cutaneous GVHD. InitialPatient was treated with oral methylprednisolone 5 mg twice daily tapered over 3 weeks and maintained with Tacrolimus 1 mg twice daily for 6 months, along with cotrimoxazole, valganciclovir, ursodeoxycholic acid for cholestasis, and sodium chloride tablet for hyponatremia. Topical mometasone furoate ointment was locally applied over erosion of the glans penis twice daily for 2 weeks with healing of lesion post treatment. The involved cutaneous and penile erosion healed over 3 weeks with normal underlying skin devoid of any pigmentation or scarring Figure . New les3GVHD is an immunologically mediated condition with varied systemic, cutaneous, and mucosal clinical features. It occurs mostly in allogeneic HSCT recipients, due to T‐cell‐mediated cytotoxicity.aGVHD is treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroid, in dose of 1 mg/kg twice daily, in tapering dose, along with prophylactic maintenance with calcineurin inhibitor such as tacrolimus or cyclosporine. Corticosteroid‐resistant cases can be alternatively treated with immunosuppressant such as mycophenolate mofetil, tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitor (JAK inhibitor) such as ruxolitinib or commercially available mesenchymal stem cell product.GVHD, due to its varied presentation, is difficult for clinicians to diagnose, which can lead to unforeseen complications including mortality.4This material is the authors' own original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere.The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.The paper reflects the authors' own research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner.The paper properly credits the meaningful contributions of coauthors and coresearchers.The results are appropriately placed in the context of prior and existing research.All sources used are properly disclosed (correct citation). Literally copying of text must be indicated as such by using quotation marks and giving proper reference.All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantial work leading to the paper, and will take public responsibility for its content.The authors assure that the following are fulfilled:The violation of the Ethical Statement rules may result in severe consequences.To verify originality, this article may be checked by the originality detection software.The authors agree with the above statements and declare that this submission follows the policies of Clinical Case Reports as outlined in the Guide for authors and in the Ethical Statement.Date: 5/9/2023.prazol.Corresponding author's signature: 5The authors have confirmed that patient consent has been signed and collected in accordance with the journal's patient consent policy.The authors agree with the above statements and declare that this submission follows the policies of Clinical Case Reports as outlined in the Guide for authors and in the Ethical Statement.Date: 5/9/2023.prazol.Corresponding author's signature: Prajwal Pudasaini: Conceptualization; supervision; visualization. Sushil Paudel: Conceptualization; project administration; resources; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. G.C Sagar: Conceptualization; supervision. Sadiksha Adhikari: Conceptualization; visualization. Neeraj Thapa: Investigation. Bibechan Thapa: Conceptualization; visualization.None.None.The authors declare that this submission follows the policies of Clinical Case Reports as outlined in the Guide for authors and in the Ethical Statement.Written informed consent was obtained from the patient to publish this report in accordance with the journal's patient consent policy.


RSC Advances article and ref. The authors regret unattributed data overlap between their The SEM data in Fig. 1a of this article was re-used from ref. The authors have now received the permission to reuse the images and the corrected caption is shown below:Fig. 1 SEM micrographs of (a) and (b) uncoated scaffolds, (c)–(f) cellulose nanowhiskers coated scaffolds, (g) cellulose nanowhiskers at different magnifications and (h) cellulose nanowhiskers coated scaffolds after immersion in SBF for 1 day. Reproduced in part from Wei Li et al., J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 2014, 40, 85–94 with permission from Elsevier.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Martin et al., RSC Chem. Biol., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CB00020F.Correction for ‘Radiolabeling and  The authors regret the omission of a funding body associated with the work. J. A. M. and J. A. C. acknowledge funding from the US Department of Energy (DE-SC-0021007 to J. A. C.).The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In “Racial/Ethnic Disparity in Association Between Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Alcohol Intake During Pregnancy: Multisite Retrospective Cohort Study”  the authors noted one error.The authorship was previously published as:Sarah Soyeon Oh, SangMin Kim, Bada Kang, Jewel Park, Seung Hee Lee, Eun-Cheol Park, Ichiro KawachiAnd will be changed to read as follows:Sarah Soyeon Oh, Bada Kang, Jewel Park, SangMin Kim, Eun-Cheol Park, Seung Hee Lee, Ichiro KawachiThe correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on April 28, 2023 together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


In the original publication , errors For Figure 4A–F, the blots of samples ctrl, BCP 50, and BCP 100 for the targets Bcl2, Bax, Caspase 3, Cyclin D1, and the β actins are re-analyzed. All of the blot images and integrated intensity are updated for the figure. For Figure 7, the blots of samples ctrl, BCP 50, and BCP 100 for the targets Cyclin D1 and the β actins are re-analyzed. The subfigures C and F are updated with the new information.It was confirmed that the study’s original conclusions are still valid and unchanged. 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.


A remote group-mediated daylong physical activity intervention for older adults with chronic pain: Results of the MORPH-II randomized pilot trial By Fanning J, Brooks AK, Ford S, Robison JT, Irby MB and Rejeski WJ. (2022). Front. Digit. Health 4:1040867. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1040867An erratum on Due to a production error, the reference list in the published paper was missing some citations and did not reflect the authors' corrected manuscript.The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated.


The journal retracts the 9 January 2018 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures, with areas of image duplication in Figure 3E. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. As a result, the data and conclusions of the article have been deemed unreliable and the article has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.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 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


Study to compare the effect of casirivimab and imdevimab, remdesivir, and favipiravir on progression and multi-organ function of hospitalized COVID-19 patients Open Medicine 2023;18(1):20230768, DOI: Journal of Clinical Virology Plus: doi.org/10.1016/j.jcvp.2023.100151.Editorial Office decided to retract this article due to significant overlap with the other papers published by the same authors in


The journal retracts the 24 March 2020 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures, with areas of image duplication and manipulation in Figures 5, 6. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. As a result, the data and conclusions of the article have been deemed unreliable and the article has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.


To the Editor,Liao et al.All authors verify their contribution to the production and writing of this manuscript.The authors declare no conflict of interest.


They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors have re-examined their original data, and realize which data panel should have been included for this experiment in this figure. The corrected version of


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper .In the published version, the resection rate numbers as reported by Kok et al.  were citThe sentence “Among patients operated on for LRRC, R0 resection rate using surgical navigation was 21% compared with 51% in a case control group” should be changed to “Among patients operated on for LRRC, R0 resection rate using surgical navigation was 79% compared with 49% in a case control group”.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


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


EquatioA correction has been made to Section 2. Methods, Section 2.4. Optical Parameter Model, Equation (1). The correct equation is: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 Pharmacol Toxicol 20, 57 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s40360-019-0335-5The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding high similarity between the images presented in Fig. 11 of this article and Fig. 6 in the authors' earlier work [None of the authors have responded to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction notice.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-023-31355-8, published online 15 March 2023Correction to: The original version of this Article contained errors in the Author contributions and Acknowledgements sections.The Author Contributions section,“D.J.: formal analysis, methodology, software, data collection, validation, visualization, conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—reviewing and editing. H.W.: investigation, funding acquisition, conceptualization, resources, project administration and supervision. J.C.: data curation. C.D.: visualization.”now reads:“D.J.: formal analysis, methodology, software, data collection, validation, visualization, conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—reviewing and editing. H.W.: investigation, conceptualization, resources, project administration and supervision. J.C.: data curation. C.D.: visualization and funding acquisition.”In addition, the digit of the Project Code in the Acknowledgements section was incorrect.“The authors received the support from The National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFF0306405). The authors appreciate the funding organization for their financial supports. The authors would also like to thank the Baiqingzhai ski resort in Shenyang of China for its full support.”now reads:“The authors received the support from The National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFF0306400). The authors appreciate the funding organization for their financial supports. The authors would also like to thank the Baiqingzhai ski resort in Shenyang of China for its full support.”The original Article has been corrected.


Dis. Model. Mech. (2015) 8, dmm017624 (doi:10.1242/dmm.017624).An error was noted in The authors inadvertently transposed the mouse and human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) panels in Fig. 3E during figure assembly. The corrected figure panel is shown below.Furthermore, the bottom-right image in Fig. 3D (‘Tumor – 15’) and the mouse HCC image in Fig. 3E were acquired from the same tumor sample under different imaging conditions. The legend for Fig. 3E has been updated to reflect this.This Correction does not affect the results in the article or the conclusions of this study. The authors apologise for the error and any inconvenience it may have caused.


When this article was originally published in Psychological Medicine it omitted an acknowledgment credit. This section has been updated to include the following: ‘The authors also grateful acknowledge research assistant Qiao Ying Leong and research fellow Dr. Alexandria Marie Remus of the N.1 Institute for Health and WisDM for their work in Prospero registration/literature review framework guidance, and literature review.’.The authors apologise for this error.


This is a topic with controversial and opposing views in the literature which we would have loved to see the authors point out so as to have a balanced discussion.,We have read Kaggwa et al.’sWe are not aware of any evidence for the claims that LME is a prolonged process that takes months to years of physical and mental suffering. We could not find epidemiological studies comparing any form of distress or mental disorders between those who practice LME and those who do not.In many African cultures, LME is considered a symbol of femininity and cultural identity.All authors contributed equally to this letter.All authors have no interests to disclose.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper: .There was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. Figure 3c must be substituted with the following one. The corrected The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


It should read “nitric acid solution ”. On line 4 in the “3.1 Characterization of AuNPs” section, on page 15088 of the original article, the text originally read “observed by TEM at 20KX, 50KX and 100KX magnifications”. It should read “observed by TEM at 30KX, 50KX and 100KX magnifications”.The authors regret that there were errors that appear in sections “2.5 SERS measurements” and “3.1 Characterization of AuNPs”. On line 3 in the “2.5 SERS measurements” section, on page 15087, the text originally read “nitric acid solution ” should be changed to “band(s)”, and “experimental Raman” should be changed to “experimental SERS” throughout the text.In the original article, the authors regret that the incorrect caption was given for Fig. 4. The corrected caption for Fig. 4 is given below.Fig. 4 Theoretical Raman and experimental SERS of four colorants and their molecular structures. (A and B) Erythrosine, (C and D) basic orange 2, (E and F) basic orange 21, and (G and H) basic orange 22. The red curve represents the theoretical Raman spectra, and black denotes the experimental SERS.a vibration modes: ν, stretching; δ, in-plane deformation.”The authors regret that there is an error in the footnote of Tables 1–4. The correct footnote should read “The authors regret that a wrong value was given in Table 6 for the FDDY-basic orange 21 mixture's REP (%). The correct value should be 5.85.The authors also regret that incorrect details were given for ref. 1 and 41 in the original article. The correct versions of ref. 1 and 41 are given below as ref. The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-021-01931-x, published online 30 November 2021Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this article.After publication concerns were raised that the XRD spectra in Fig. 8 are identical. The authors are unable to provide the original data for examination. In addition, an investigation by the Editors has shown inappropriate changes in authorship during the review process. The Editors no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented.Jawad Ahmad disagrees with this retraction. Fahid Aslam and Mohamed Hechmi El Ouni did not respond to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were not able to obtain current email addresses for Rebeca Martinez-Garcia and Khalid Mohamed Khedher.


Correction to: Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2021) 259:3511–351310.1007/s00417-021-05217-wWe revised Table 1 after a change in methodology prior to submission, but erroneously left the table headers of Table 1 from the first data run. The remainder of the data within the manuscript and table are accurate.This erratum would like to correct the column headers of Table 1 as:Total population , APPM , MPM , CPM , IHM .We apologize for this error.


Furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors have re-examined their data and realized that Fig. 5A was inadvertently assembled incorrectly; however, the authors still had access to their original data, and the revised version of Fig. 5, now including the correct data panel for the ‘hUMSCs/vector’ experiment, is shown opposite. The authors regret the error that was made during the preparation of this figure, although they were able to confirm that this did not seriously affect the conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the editor of


The funder Avalon Globo-Care Corp had no interference in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors apologise for this error.In the aforementioned article, the authors’ conflict of interest statement is incorrectly worded. The statement should read:


The Royal Society of Chemistry is publishing this Expression of concern in order to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of the SEM data in Fig. S1b and d. An investigation is underway, and an Expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until a final outcome is reached.Laura Fisher2nd November 2023RSC AdvancesExecutive Editor,


Sci., 2022, 13, 1263–1269, https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC04502D.Correction for ‘Peptide epitope-imprinted polymer microarrays for selective protein recognition. Application for SARS-CoV-2 RBD protein’ by Zsófia Bognár  The authors regret that the funding details were incomplete in the Acknowledgements section of the original article. In addition to the original acknowledgements the following text should have been included:The research reported in this paper is part of Project BME-EGA-02, implemented with support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the TKP2021 funding scheme.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In addition, for the images shown in Figures 2D and S2F, the MGM concentration used was 10-fold higher than originally described, and there were minor differences in the staining and washing steps. All these differences have since been corrected online. All co-authors on the manuscript have approved these corrections. The authors apologize for the error.


Correction: Hereditas (2021) 158:1010.1186/s41065-021-00171-3Following the publication of the original article , the comDr. Yongyong Shi is a Chief Scientist for Dynegene and a Co-Chief Editor for Hereditas. All the other authors declare that they have no competing interests.


Although there are more women in medicine now than ever before, gender parity is still not reflected in leadership positions within academic medicine , 2. ArtiAll research articles published online in the journal were analyzed from 2013 to the end of 2021. The genders of first, middle and senior authors were recorded along with the article type, article category and institutional affiliations. The total number of female authors including unique authors, along with the number of first and senior female authors specifically, were quantified. Gender was identified through name searches and online sources. Proportions of same-gender first and senior authors were calculated. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the change in proportion over time between years and groups. Chi-square tests of gender differences were used to assess gender representation by article category and type. The study used publicly available, de-identified data and was exempt from institutional ethics board review.P < 0.001). Of the 529 first authors, 157 (29.7%) were female and 372 (70.3%) were male (P < 0.001). Of the 521 senior authors, 74 (14.2%) were female and 447 (85.8%) were male (P < 0.001)  female authors and 2331 (76.2%) male authors (P = 0.298) and senior authors  did not increase significantly over time. The proportion of articles with same gender first and senior author by year revealed a non-significant decrease in male first author to male senior author collaborations . There was a significant difference in gender representation in senior authorship by article category, notably in facial plastics and rhinology (P = 0.005) (Table The proportion of female first authors (25.4% in 2013 to 35.7% in 2021; Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery. These findings suggest that female OHNS surgeons are participating in research overall at similar rates at which they are represented in the Canadian OHNS community [The present study highlights the trends in female authorship representation within the Canadian ommunity . Despiteommunity .Although there has been an increase in the proportion of female authors in the Canadian Journal, our findings suggest that there is no significant change in female authorship representation throughout the study period. By leveraging quantitative findings, future studies should identify barriers to female advancement within the field and encourage actionable efforts such as promotion of women in academia and diversification of research opportunities. In doing so, we will be able to dismantle the hurdles and encourage sponsorship of female OHNS surgeons in their academic contributions to the field.


The full text of this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors while they make corrections to the work. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as a reference. Questions should be directed to the corresponding author.


Correction to: Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy (2023) 72:193–209 10.1007/s00262-022-03227-zThe original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. There were two mistakes in the Figs. In Fig. 2 amendments are:Fig. 2a–b: Y-axis label,Fig. 2a: Fig. 2a is wrong, it is the content of Fig. 2c, we modified this figure.In Fig. 5 amendments are:Fig. 5c: Statistical results are blocked.The corrected Figs.


Cabeza et al., Chem. Sci., 2023, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SC02709K.Correction for ‘Fast and scalable solvent-free access to Lappert's heavier tetrylenes E{N(SiMe The originally published ηsolv = 1* , was omitted.In In The updated The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Oncogene 10.1038/s41388-021-02009-8, published online 29 September 2021Correction to: The authors have become aware of an error in Figure 6B, where the histological image assigned to R304Q was from the same animal as the image marked C238Y. The authors have provided the corrected figure below. This correction has no impact on the results or conclusions presented in this paper.The authors apologize for the error and regret any inconvenience this may have caused for the readers.The original article has been corrected.


In the Research Article “Tumor Microenvironment-Specific Chemical Internalization for Enhanced Gene Therapy of Metastatic Breast Cancer,” the authors made an error in Fig.


Journal of Molecular Cell Biology (2017), 9(4), 289‒301, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmcb/mjx022In this article, there were errors in Figures 4D , 3E and F, 5G and H, and 5J and K .Iba1 band in Figure 4D was the same as Cleaved caspase-3 band in Figure 2F. This was caused by carelessly mistaking the latter  for Iba1 band due to the high similarity between images . This was caused by carelessly using the same FCS file for analyzing different groups, which was not immediately discovered by authors due to the similar percentage values and shapes as expected from the two groups. All the re-exported FACS images from re-analyzing the original FCS files by Flowjo software are provided in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology online.These corrections do not affect the results, discussion, or conclusions. The authors sincerely apologize to the editors and readers for any inconvenience or confusion. Figure 4DFigure 3E and FFigure 5G and HFigure 5J and Kmjad028_Supplemental_FileClick here for additional data file.


Please find the retraction statement below:Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures.Following the provision of raw data by the authors, the Chief Editor concluded that the article’s conclusions and assertions were not sufficiently supported by the findings from the material provided; therefore, the article has been retracted.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editor of Frontiers in Oncology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe University of California, Davis confirmed that author DPW admitted to manipulation of the data underlying the results presented in Figs 6 and 7.PLOS Genetics Editors issue this Expression of Concern to notify readers of the above issues.The authors are working with PLOS to try and address these issues. Meanwhile, the


Error in FigureIn the original publication , there wThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are not affected by this correction. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Acta Cryst. (2022), B78, 643–664] are given.Corrections to the article by König and Smith [ Acta Cryst. (2022), B78, 643–664Corrections to the article by König and Smith [ Acta Cryst. (2022), B78, 643–664h and interface lengths dIF. In addition, the caption of Fig. 13 wrongly mentions {110} instead of In the paper by König & Smith [The authors apologize for inconveniences caused by the misprints.


The published version of this paper listed onlyRobert Freer asthe corresponding author. The purpose of this correction is to identifyboth David J. Lewis and Robert Freer as corresponding authors.The conclusions of the work have not been affected by this correction.


In Vitro Assay to Evaluate Treatment Resistance in Patients Receiving Immunosuppressive Therapy” published on 25 January 2021. Specifically, concerns have been raised that three individuals, Veronica Sánchez Rodríguez, Marianna di Scala, and Javier Dotor, have been excluded from the author list. An investigation was conducted in line with COPE guidelines involving the authors’ institution and the funding body, but unfortunately no conclusion could be reached.With this notice, Frontiers states its awareness of concerns regarding the authorship of “The Immunobiogram, a Novel This Expression of Concern was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Immunology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors do not agree to this Expression of Concern.


Dis. Model. Mech. (2010) 3, dmm002311 (doi:1242/dmm.002311).There were errors in SREBP-1c, ACC1, FAS, PPARA, CPT1, ACO1 and β-actin shown in the original Fig. 3E and Fig. 4E represent cropped images of a single set of gels. However, during figure assembly, some images were cropped incorrectly, leading to discrepancies among the images shown.All semi-quantitative RT-PCR data for SREBP-1c , FAS , CPT1  and β-actin  gels. The authors have provided the corrected versions of these panels as a single figure. All citations to Fig. 3E and Fig. 4E in the main text should now refer to this new panel.Specifically, there were errors in assembly of the This correction does not affect the results in the article or the conclusions of this study. The authors apologise for these errors and any inconvenience they may have caused.


Genetics, 2023, iyad049, https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/iyad049This is an Editor's Note on: This Version of Record incorporates edits made by the authors prior to manuscript acceptance in response to reviewer feedback, but that were not included in the version that posted as an Accepted Manuscript. The authors, editors, and publisher apologize for any confusion caused to readers.


Furthermore, the data panels shown in Fig. 3A for the ‘Control/U343’ and ‘Control/172’, and the ‘miR-21/β-catenin’ and ‘Control/T98’, experiments were also found to be unexpectedly similar, given that these were likewise intended to show the results from differently performed experiments.Molecular Medicine Reports has determined that the above paper should be retracted from the Journal on account of a lack of confidence in the presented data. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor regrets any inconvenience that has been caused to the readership of the Journal.After having conducted an independent investigation in the Editorial Office, the Editor of


Corrigendum on:Impact of a tobacco sales ban on the frequency of tobacco consumption in India during the COVID-19 pandemicBy Nitika Sharma, Mansi Chopra, Linda Bauld, Gaurang P. Nazar, Nishigandha Joshi, Aastha Chugh, Sailesh Mohan, Deepa Mohan, Mohammed K. Ali, Vishwanathan Mohan, Nikhil Tandon, K. M. Venkat Narayan, K. Srinath Reddy, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Monika AroraTobacco Induced Diseases, Volume 21, Issue April, Pages 1–6, Publish date: 28 April 2023https://doi.org/10.18332/tid/161855DOI: In the originally published version of the article, the name of the 12th author was given as Venkat K. M. Narayan and is now changed to K. M. Venkat Narayan. Furthermore, in the authors’ contributions section, the initials VKMN are now changed to KMVN. The mentioned changes are corrected also online.


Cancer Med. 2019;8:4782–4791. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2350Tong L, Ao Y, Zhang H, Wang K, Wang Y, Ma Q. Long noncoding RNA NORAD is upregulated in epithelial ovarian cancer and its downregulation suppressed cancer cell functions by competing with miR‐155‐5p. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Dr Stephen Tait and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to scientific inconsistences invalidating the conclusions presented.The above article, published online on 28 June 2019 in Wiley Online Library ( Cancer Med. 2019;8:4782–4791. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2350Tong L, Ao Y, Zhang H, Wang K, Wang Y, Ma Q. Long noncoding RNA NORAD is upregulated in epithelial ovarian cancer and its downregulation suppressed cancer cell functions by competing with miR‐155‐5p. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Dr Stephen Tait and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to scientific inconsistences invalidating the conclusions presented.The above article, published online on 28 June 2019 in Wiley Online Library (


Moreover, it appeared that various of the data shown in this figure, and western blotting data shown in Fig. 3A, were strikingly similar to data that had appeared in different form in different articles published by different authors at different research institutes.Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that some of the data in the above article had already been published, or were under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


Dear Editor, we would like to share ideas on the publication “Stroke seven hours after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination”.The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


In the original publication , the figThe original References [142–145] should be moved after Reference [62], listed as References [63–66]. With this correction, the order of some references has been adjusted accordingly. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


AIDS Research and Therapy (2023) 20:3310.1186/s12981-023-00531-1The Editor-in-Chiefs have retracted this article because it contains material that substantially overlaps with the following articles (amongst others) , 2. None


NQO1 promotes an aggressive phenotype in hepatocellular carcinoma via amplifying ERK‐NRF2 signaling. Cancer Sci. 2021; 112: 641–654. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Masanori Hatakeyama, the Japanese Cancer Association and John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party about figures within the article. During the journal's investigation into the concerns raised, the authors were not able to provide comprehensive original data for the figures in concern. Accordingly, the editorial team considers the conclusions of this manuscript insufficiently supported.The above article, published online on 22 November 2020 in Wiley Online Library ( NQO1 promotes an aggressive phenotype in hepatocellular carcinoma via amplifying ERK‐NRF2 signaling. Cancer Sci. 2021; 112: 641–654. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Masanori Hatakeyama, the Japanese Cancer Association and John Wiley and Sons Australia, Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party about figures within the article. During the journal's investigation into the concerns raised, the authors were not able to provide comprehensive original data for the figures in concern. Accordingly, the editorial team considers the conclusions of this manuscript insufficiently supported.The above article, published online on 22 November 2020 in Wiley Online Library (


Withdrawal: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/npr2.12343 ), has been withdrawn by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. The Withdrawal has been agreed because the patient revoked consent to the publication.The above article, published online on 07 May 2023 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) as Early View (


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-021-94450-8, published online 29 July 2021Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.Following publication, concerns were raised about the rationale for the approach presented, the assumptions and approximations used and the validity of its application to cardiology. 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 main concerns are that the model is based on circular reasoning which makes it non-predictive, that it assumes that blood behaves as an ideal gas, and hypothesizes that quasi-sonic flow velocities exist in the cardiovascular system while all experimental evidence shows that cardiovascular flow velocities are orders of magnitude lower than the speed of sound and do not involve any compressibility effects. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented.None of the Authors has responded to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.


Sci., 2019, 10, 2067–2074, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SC02847H.Correction for ‘A non-sacrificial method for the quantification of poly(ethylene glycol) grafting density on gold nanoparticles for applications in nanomedicine’ by Jun Lu  D) were incorrect. The corrected equation and calculated diffusion coefficient are shown here:The authors regret that on page 9 of the ESI, the Stokes–Einstein equation and calculated diffusion coefficient  on page 2068 of the main article should therefore be 3.81 × 10The ESI available online has now been updated to reflect these changes.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-022-15685-7, published online 07 July 2022Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.After publication concerns were raised about the use of nonsensical language and excessive citation of work that is not directly relevant to the subject of this article. The Editors requested an explanation from the Authors; however, their response did not adequately address these concerns. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the reliability of the conclusions presented.Wasim Jamshed, Mohamed R. Eid, Rabia Safdar, Amjad Ali Pasha, Siti Suzilliana Putri Mohamed Isa, Mohammad Adil and Wajaree Weera disagree with this retraction. Zulfiqar Rehman has not responded to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.


The authors regret an error in the acknowledgments of the original manuscript, which has been corrected in the present corrigendum:Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, under the grant agreement PID2019-107126RB-C22. Additionally, we would like to express our gratitude to Imefy for providing the high-density pressboard, the mechanical properties of which are reported in the present article.The authors gratefully acknowledge funding for this work from the The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


There was an error in the original publication . We misuA correction has been made to Methods, Paragraph 1 on the first line:“The study was systematically reviewed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [26].”The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


In the original version, onlyBruno Ehrler is listed as a corresponding author, but both Han Zuilhofand Bruno Ehrler are corresponding authors.


Retraction Note: Cell Commun Signal 20, 35 (2022)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12964-022-00833-3The Editor has retracted this article on request from the authors. After publication, the authors became concerned that the KYSE180 cell line used in this study was contaminated. In addition, image overlap has been found in Fig. 2F. The authors stated overlapping images for cell line KYSE30 were wrongly used to present data for cell line KYSE180. Readers should disregard this figure.Authors Han-Ming Huang, Xin-Hua He, Guo-Yun Wang, Ze-Peng Du, Qiao-Xi Xia and Yong-Fa Zhang agree to this retraction. Author Xiao-Yu Huang has not responded to correspondence from the publisher or editor about this retraction.


Following publication, the editorial office was contacted by the first author regarding the omission of co-authors from the article, due to a misunderstanding of their contributions. All authors of the manuscript have agreed to and requested to retract the published article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Veterinary Science and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


Correction: BMC Public Health 22, 1385 (2022)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13724-6The original publication of this article  containeIncorrectIG, MT, MS, JP, NF, LC, FL, AK, NG, ET, PG conceptualised the project. All authors were involved with generation of the protocol. IG, MT, ATM, MS, GP and JP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors listed have been implicated in the development of the ongoing project described in the protocol including patients. All authors were involved in editing and approving the manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. IG, MT, MS, and AK act as guarantors.Correct.IG, MT, MS, JP, NF, GP,LC, FL, AK, NG, ET, PG conceptualised the project. All authors were involved with generation of the protocol. IG, MT, ATM, MS, GP and JP wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors listed  have been implicated in the development of the ongoing project described in the protocol including patients. All authors were involved in editing and approving the manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted. IG, MT, MS, and AK act as guarantors.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study.”Dear Authors,Thank you very much for this interesting paper  about caKind regards!


Mutation of residue 313 in the viral nucleoprotein from F/L to Y/V  facilitates IAVs to escape from BTN3A3 restriction on virus replication. It is worrisome that regional migration of migratory birds, intensified livestock production, and global population mobility accelerate the cross‐species transmission of IAVs from other host species to humans.The spillover of avian IAVs from avian to human has caused several global pandemics, seriously affecting global economic development and threatening the health of humans and animals.H.F. designed the research. H.F., L.T., and M.L. read the papers and analyzed the data. L.T. and H.F. wrote and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.2Not applicable.


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer (2022) 22:72810.1186/s12885-022-09833-5The Editors have retracted this article. After publication, the authors contacted the journal to request a correction to Fig. 2c, as the same images were used for EdU si-NC and EdU si-Lnc-NDRG1, and provided the raw data for validation. Further checks by the publisher found additional concerns:Figure 5d MG63 si-NDRG1 + miR-96-5p inhibitor NC and si-NDRG1 + miR-96-5p inhibitor images (and the associated raw data) appear to overlap.There appear to be several other instances of image overlap in the raw data files.The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.Xi Chen, Hao Zhu, Guangxin Zhou and Zhen Wang agree to this retraction. None of the other co-authors have responded to any correspondence from the Editors about this retraction.


The journal retracts the 02 July 2019 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. The authors failed to provide the raw data or a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies. Given the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors agree with this retraction.


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.


Retraction: J Transl Med (2019) 17:76 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1830-6The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the corresponding author's request. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the images presented in the figures. Specifically:In Fig. 1d, the Control and Test images appear to originate from the same sample.Fig. 2d Control appears highly similar to Fig. 2b circRNA overexpression group in the authors' other article that was under consideration within a similar time frame .In Fig. 4a, the Control and Test 0h images appear to overlap.In Figs. 4b and 6b, the 0h images appear to contain overlapping areas.In Fig. 4c, there appears to be an overlapping area between the SSC9 Control and Test images.In Fig. 7d, based on the shapes of the bands, it appears that the caspase-3 blot is shifted by one lane, so the group labels don't seem to match the samples.The authors have checked the data underlying this article and stated that incorrect images were used. The authors and the Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data.Wen Su, Feng Wang, Yuehong Shen and Hongyu Yang agree to this retraction. The Publisher has not been able to obtain a current email address for Shuai Sun.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper . On page 6 of the published paper, the authors would like to correct In the original publication, there was a mistake in On page 7 of the published paper, the authors would like to correct In the original publication, there was a mistake in On page 6 of the published paper, the authors would like to correct the last sentence of Paragraph 3.5 of the Results section:There was an error in the original publication. The last sentence of Paragraph 3.5 reads: “On multivariate analysis of mortality in TV and LL cohorts, only age in the TV group and ventricular stimulation percentage in the LL group appeared to significantly impact mortality, while on analysis of the entire population, only age displayed a significant association with mortality ”; howeveOn page 3 of the published paper, the authors would like to correct the third paragraph of the Materials and Methods section:There was an error in the original publication: the symbol “≤” is missing from the second sentence of the third paragraph of the Materials and Methods section. A correction has thus been made to the third paragraph of Materials and Methods, as follows: “Specifically, vitamin K antagonists were tapered to the INR range of 2–2.5 for the week following device implantation in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score ≤ 3.”Lastly, on pages 3–6 of the published paper, the authors would like to make the following corrections to the Results section:In the Results section (pages 3–6), the spelled out numbers have been changed to numerals for clarity purposes.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 would like to make the following corrections to the publication :The authors accidentally mixed up the place of the numbers 2 and 3 in the designation “SLC3A2” of the heterodimeric partner of LAT-1, namely CD98 (4F2hc). Therefore, on various occasions throughout the paper, we incorrectly wrote the designation as “SLC2A3” (which is the designation of GLUT3) instead of its correct designation “SLC3A2”. Throughout the whole text, including the title, citation and Figure 5 legend, the authors would like to replace “SLC2A3” with “SLC3A2”.Additionally, in Section 4.10, the cell line “hCMEC/D3” was misspelled as “HPMEC/D3”.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 to: Molecular Medicine (2018) 24:18 10.1186/s10020-018-0020-yThe Editor in Chief has retracted this article after an investigation by the Academic Committee of Jiangsu Normal University found image irregularities in Figs. 3 and 4 C, 6 A and 7 C. The Academic Committee of Jiangsu Normal University requested the original experimental records and data for verification from the authors of this article, however, the authors were unable to provide this. The Editor in Chief has therefore lost confidence in the integrity of the data and results of this article.None of the authors responded to any correspondence from the editor about this retraction.


Dear Editor,1 with great interest, thank you for your comments. We read the letter1 a smartphone-based application can be very useful for daily practice. We think that the main problem in these applications is the difficulty related to language. For example, encephalapp stroop test is in English and you can not change the language of the application. We think also grasping a pen is not the same as using a smartphone screen. For some patients, it is very difficult to use a small phone screen. As the authors mentioned in their letter2We appreciate the authors’ comment and we thank them again for their interest in our article.The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.


It should be PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259448Flood, M.W.; Grimm, B. EntropyHub: An open-source toolkit for entropic time series analysis. .In the original article , the refWith this correction, the order of references has not been changed. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion images shown in Fig. 6B, C, E and F were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in other articles. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Article title: Discovery of novel arylamide derivatives containing piperazine moiety as inhibitors of tubulin polymerization with potent liver cancer inhibitory activityAuthors: Xiao-Yi Shi, Huang Jiao, Jia-Kai Zhang, Xin-Yi Tian, Dan-Feng Guo, Jie Gao, Mei-Qi Jia, Jian Song, Sai-Yang Zhang, Xiang-Jing Fu, Hong-Wei TangJournal:Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal ChemistryBibliometrics: Volume 38, Number 1,DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14756366.2023.2237701Figure 5A ∼ C of this article. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. The correct version of Figure 5 is as follows:The authors regret the following errors in


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data.The Royal Society of Chemistry, with the agreement of the authors, hereby wholly retracts this Concerns were initially raised with the integrity of the western blots in Fig. 6.The authors provided raw data for the western blot images which does not appear to be genuine. The raw data shows signs of cloning as duplicating features can be observed, which indicates that the images have been manipulated.The authors state that they outsourced the western blot experiments in this paper and have offered to re-perform this work. However, given the significance of the concerns about the validity of both the data in the article and the raw data provided by the authors, the findings presented in this paper are not reliable.Signed: Zehai Song, Hang Chang, Na Han, Zhihui Liu, Ye Liu, Hui Wang, Jingxuan Shao, Zhonglin Wang, Hao Gao and Jun YinDate: 24th March 2023


Oncol Rep 29: 151–159, 2012.Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Mammaliicoccus sciuri DNA instead of Trueperella pyogenes. The conclusions reported in the article are no longer supported by the analyses; therefore, the article has been retracted.Following publication, the authors contacted the Editorial Office to request the retraction of the cited article, stating that further analysis of phage vB-ApyS-JF1 sequencing data discovered contamination with This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers of Microbiology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors agree to this retraction.


Retraction Note : Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research (2022) 17:528 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03410-zThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised that the study reported in this article included data from patients who had undergone tibial transverse transport (TTT) as early as 2015. The authors were asked to provide example scans from 2015 from their dataset. However, the scans provided did not depict the required areas and the procedures discussed in the article. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions presented. None of the authors has responded to correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction.


RSC Advances is publishing this Expression of Concern in order to alert our readers to the fact that we are presently unable to confirm the accuracy of the information published in this article related to compound 2w. A reader has raised concerns that the 13C NMR spectrum provided for compound 2w does not fit the reported structure. The authors disagree with the reader's claims. An independent expert has reviewed the matter and has recommended that the authors must provide further evidence, from X-ray or other confirmatory tool, in order to prove the proposed structure of compound 2w.An expression of concern will continue to be associated with this article until a conclusive outcome is reached.Laura FisherRSC AdvancesExecutive Editor, 4th October 2023.


Subsequently, the Editorial Office conducted an independent investigation of this paper, and it was found that cellular data featured in both Figs. 3E and 4B in the above paper had already been published in the following respective articles, written by different authors at different research institutes: Sheu J-J, Lee F-Y, Wallace GC, Tsai T-H, Leu S, Chen Y-L, Chai H-T, Lu H-I, Sun C-K and Yip H-K: Administered circulating microparticles derived from lung cancer patients markedly improved angiogenesis, blood flow and ischemic recovery in rat critical limb ischemia. J Transl Med 13: 59, 2015; and Zhang M, Wang L, Dong M, Li Z and Jin F: Endothelial semaphorin 7A promotes inflammation in seawater aspiration-induced acute lung injury. Int J Mol Sci 15: 19650-19661, 2014].Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 20, 120 (2020)10.1186/s12906-020-02902-xThe Editor has retracted this article at the request of the corresponding author because the authors have been unable to repeat the results. In addition, there appears to be significant overlap with another publication . Wen Hua


After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.In view of the fact that certain of the data in the above article had already appeared in a previously published paper, and given the large number of apparently overlapping data panels identified in several of the figures, the Editor of


With this notice, Transplant International states its awareness of concerns as raised by the authors regarding the data validity of “Real-World Treatment Patterns of Antiviral Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus Among Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Linked USRDS-Medicare Database Study” published on 12 August 2022. While a revised version is currently being conducted by the authors in collaboration with the Editorial Office, this expression of concern has been posted while Transplant International awaits the revisions. It will be updated accordingly after that time.


Diabetol Metab Syndr (2019) 11:5Retraction: Khalili 10.1186/s13098-019-0400-7The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because it has been previously published by some of the same authors . This ar


The revised version of


To the Editor:We would like to thank Professor Marshall Lichtman for his letter, his interesting proposal, and using this venue to promote discussion of the topic. Professor Lichtman proposed a numerical calculation for authorship based on the authors’ perceptions of their relative contribution to a scientific publication,However, we question whether this proposal will solve authorship problems in academic publishing. Take, for example, coercive authorship. If Lichtman’s proposal is adopted, certain individuals’ demands might not be satisfied by being given a place in the authors’ byline. These individuals would now demand a substantial “share” within the fractional contribution to legitimize their inclusion. In such a case, the relative “contribution” of legitimate authors can only decrease. Such a scenario could potentially transform legitimate contributors into ghost authors, further exacerbating the problem of misattributed authorship.Contrary to Lichtman’s model, in which the only parameter examined is the authors’ roles in deciding who contributed and the degree to which they contributed, our study evaluated the impact of the institutions with which the authors were affiliated on authorship misconduct. We evaluated authorship dispute since it is a commonly encountered situation. We maintain that the issues underlying these disputes are much larger than just a personal disagreement between individual contributors. Typically, although several parties may be involved in a dispute (disputing authors and their institution(s)), only the disputing authors are officially engaged in the conflict; the institutions become officially involved only if it is reported to them. Lichtman’s model, however, assumes that the institutions of disputing authors have no influence on the evolution of the conflict. The results of our study question Lichtman’s assumption. We showed that increasing experience with authorship misconduct is associated with lower Trust Scores in the respondents’ institutions. In fact, most respondents preferred not to involve their administration in resolving a conflict if there was an authorship dispute. These respondents did not perceive their institutions to be passive or neutral third parties.An idealistic view of academia leads to shock at the thought that a scientist, who has spent years studying, exploring, and teaching, would be willing to engage in misconduct such as placing one’s name on a scientific publication without justification or, worse, falsifying and fabricating experimental results. The incentive is the pressure to publish at any cost. This pressure is not inborn. Rather, this pressure is the consequence of institutional demands.Many organizations, such as the US Office of Research Integrity, argue that authorship complaints should be tagged as authorship disputes rather than acts of misconduct such as plagiarism.discredit and constitutes plagiarism.Take, for example, author displacement. According to The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, “Plagiarism is using other people’s work or ideas without giving proper credit to the original source.”Both plagiarism and other causes commonly underlying authorship disputes belong within the spectrum of inappropriate crediting of an individual’s contributions to the scientific record . Ghost aWe believe that the scientific establishment must stop diminishing the significance of authorship disputes. The root causes of such disputes and the system failures to resolve them should be sought and addressed. If underlying misconduct is encountered, institutions must not ignore it, regardless of the seniority or tenure of the faculty member involved. We wish to quote one of our survey respondents who commented on the importance of the active role of institutions: “Within our institute, we have clear rules and guidance on how authorship is handled, and we rarely have issues with authorship. Therefore, in our environment, authors can handle this [dispute] themselves.” Our study clearly showed that Trust was higher and that gift authorship rates were lower in institutions that made known their authorship policies.Institutions should actively foster a culture embracing research and publication integrity. To that end, institutions should seek to be more proactive in the prevention and resolution of authorship disputes. Integral steps include establishing and publishing a non-ambiguous policy, examination of the source of such disputes, and setting in motion processes that will promote equitable authorship dispute resolution.We would like to thank Professor Lichtman for raising the issue of proper attribution of authorship, which is the basis for avoiding authorship disputes.


MMWR Editors were informed by authors of “Timing of Introduction of Complementary Foods — United States, 2016–2018” (On May 25,


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


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-022-11642-6, published online 07 May 2022Retraction of: Editors have retracted this Article.1. The Editors requested the Authors to provide raw original data and explanations regarding the contributions and the overlap but found the response provided by the Authors insufficient. Given these issues and that authorship of the paper could not be verified, the Editors no longer have confidence in the content of this Article.After publication, concerns were raised about authorship and description of author contributions, as well as nonsensical phrases used in the Article and an overlap with a previously-published paper that shares 3 authors in commonShaghaiegh Baghaie disagrees with this retraction. Qun Liu did not respond to the correspondence about this retraction. The Editors have not been able to establish current email addresses for Olga Bykanova, Ravil Akhmadeev, Maboud Hekmatifar, Ahmadreza Arefpour, Roozbeh Sabetvand & Vitaliy Borisov.


This article has been corrected at the request of the submitting author to change affiliation information.For each of the four authors, their affiliation information has been changed from "Saint James School of Medicine, Chicago, USA" to "Saint James School of Medicine, Arnos Vale, VCT".The authors deeply regret that this error was not identified and addressed prior to publication.


In “Preliminary Investigation of Shift, a Novel Smartphone App to Support Junior Doctors’ Mental Health and Well-being: Examination of Symptom Progression, Usability, and Acceptability After 1 Month of Use” :e38497) the authors noted one syntax error:A total of 222 female  junior doctors provided full baseline data.The corrected version is:A total of 222  junior doctors provided full baseline data.”The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website, together with the publication of this correction notice on April 3, 2023. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Cancer Gene Therapy 10.1038/s41417-022-00582-y, published online 04 January 2023Correction to: In the article “Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals changes in glioma-associated macrophage polarization and cellular states of malignant gliomas with high AQP4 expression” by Wang et al., Cancer Gene Ther., 2023, 10.1038/s41417-022-00582-y, a correction was needed.The order of the author list should be “Ran Wang, Lu Peng, Yong Xiao, Qi Zhou, Zhen Wang, Lei Tang, Hong Xiao, Kun Yang, Hongyi Liu, Li Li”.The order of the corresponding authors’ email addresses should be “email: doctoryk@njmu.edu.cn; njnkyylhy@163.com; annylish@126.com”.The claim of the corresponding authors should be “Correspondence to Kun Yang, Hongyi Liu or Li Li.” in the HTML version, and “Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Kun Yang, Hongyi Liu or Li Li.” in the PDF version.The original article has been corrected.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Why We Are Losing the War Against COVID-19 on the Data Front and How to Reverse the Situation”.This paper  is inter1. The authors should ensure that their points are supported by citations, appropriate to a scientific manuscript.who would regulate the sharing of the data across systems and international borders , who would coordinate the analyses conducted with shared data to make sure that there is efficiency  and that appropriate analyses are conducted, and where would the funding coming from .2. The authors should address several main barriers to the recommendations made—3. Not all authors use preprints, and peer review has not been effective in addressing some rushed science, particularly in the last few months. How should these concerns be addressed?The authors have been responsive to the reviewers’ comments and have improved the piece. I have a few remaining concerns, as noted below.1. The paper could still benefit from references to support the authors’ points. For example, the first paragraph does not include a single reference. As another example, point 7—what evidence do the authors have that, “the more relevant the data of the registry and the larger the potential research community, the bigger the bottleneck is likely to be”?2. Epidemiological data are, in fact, telling us who is more likely to be infected—by race, ethnicity, age, etc. The authors should clarify the unique contribution of clinical data.3. It is not clear what the authors mean by “In large health systems that cover most of the population cases can be captured rather quickly if the learning system is implemented and coordinated across sites (hence the need for regulating and standardising the methods).”4. The authors do not clearly define the health learning system in contrast to current practices.


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 data shown for the Transwell cell migration and invasion assays in Figs. 2C, 5D and 6D were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors, several of which have been retracted. 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 authors would like to make corrections to the reference citations in the original article . The autThe 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 our original paper, there are two errors:(1)(2)The corrections to the figures do not affect in anyway the conclusion,discussion, or data interpretation of the work since the misplacementof the images was due to an editorial error. No other errors are presentin the published paper.


In "Assessment of the Efficacy, Safety, and Effectiveness of Weight Control and Obesity Management Mobile Health Interventions: Systematic Review" :e16899) the authors noted one clarification that should be added:The Acknowledgments section reads as:All authors contributed equally. The research for this paper was fully funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant number PI16/01764.And will be changed to:All authors contributed equally. The research for this paper was fully funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant number PI16/01764 co-funded by FEDER.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on April 10, 2023 together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Chitinase 1 (CHIT1) plays a role in the pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis by modulating canonical and noncanonical TGF-β signaling via interaction with TGFBRAP1 and FOXO3. These findings highlight the CHIT1/SMAD7 axis as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target of pulmonary fibrosis. PMID: 31085559.Article: Lee C-M, He C-H, Park JW, Lee JH, Kamle S, Ma B, Akosman B, Cotez R, Chen E, Zhou Y, Herzog EL, Ryu C, Peng X, Rosas IO, Poli S, Bostwick CF, Choi AM, Elias JA, Lee CG (2019 May 13) Chitinase 1 regulates pulmonary fibrosis by modulating TGF-β/SMAD7 pathway via TGFBRAP1 and FOXO3. Life Sci Alliance 2(3): e201900350. doi: The authors identified that there were two inadvertent mistakes that led to the duplication of some of the blots that made up the panels in Editor’s note: The authors requested the publication of a corrigendum promptly when the error was first noted and the delay in publishing the corrigendum was not due to any fault or delay on the part of the authors of the article.


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, a concerned reader drew to the attention of the Editorial Office that, for the flow cytometric plots shown in Fig. 4A on p. 1012, in comparing the dats shown for the T98G and U87MG experiments, the plots in the lower pair of quadrants looked remarkably similar, whereas the data in the upper pair of quadrants were clearly different. Upon assessing the matter raised by the reader, the Editor of


A recent paper in this journal by Mozaffari et al.  reportedThe authors correctly argue that LCSA is an integrated approach to cover the three aspects of sustainability: environmental, economic and social  at a location (Bardaskan). That is valuable. But an activity is not a life cycle (Heijungs & Cucurachi,


Finally, there were erroneous calculations included for the CtBP1 expression data shown in Table III.Oncology Reports has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal due to an overall lack of confidence in the presented data. After contacting the authors, they accepted the decision to retract this paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Given the large number of apparent errors that were made during the assembly of various of the figures and Table III in this paper, the Editor of


The authors have previously requested to correct Figure 6A, and this request was under consideration at the time these additional concerns were raised by readers.The Editorial Office has been made aware of potential issues surrounding the scientific validity of this paper, hence has issued an expression of concern to notify readers whilst the Editorial Office investigates. It has been noted that the Western blots of Figure 5C appear similar to those in a retracted publication by a different author group (DOI:


In the original publication , there wThere was an error in the original publication. The dosage of hypoxanthine (Hypox) was incorrectly stated in the original publication. The dosage of Hypox should be 500 mg/kg.Section 3. Discussion, Paragraph 8:A correction has been made to “In this study, Allop was demonstrated to decrease the levels of liver XOD and serum UA, and increase the levels of urine CRE (day 6) in this rapid HUA mouse model. However, Allop did not reverse the increased serum levels of CRE and BUN in HUA mice. By contrast, Chen et al. [64] reported that Allop was able to decrease serum levels of CRE and BUN in HUA mice. The underlying cause to explain the conflicting findings may be attributed to the differences in the approaches to establish HUA mouse model. In their study, the authors employed intraperitoneal injection with PO to establish the HUA mouse model. However, in the present study, Hypox  was used to induce HUA mice in addition to PO exposure.”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.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


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-017-01224-w, published online 27 October 2017Retraction to: The authors are retracting this Article after they became aware that Fig. 2g, 3a, 3d, 4b-d, 5a, 5d, and Supplementary Fig. 1a were prepared in an inappropriate manner.The blot images shown in Fig. 2g, 3a, 3d, 4b, 5a and 5d assess TOR activity and autophagy, and were produced by assembling different sections of the original blot images in a way that did not indicate the splicing and merging of lanes, and in some cases the loading controls shown did not correspond to the correct gels/blots. In addition, background sections of the plant images shown in Fig. 4c-d had been duplicated. Finally, the gel images shown in Supplementary Fig. 1a to confirm plant genotypes contain internal duplications and the original data cannot be found. Subsequent genotyping data has confirmed the genotype of the plants and the authors continue to believe that the data on TOR activity and autophagy are supported. The authors maintain full confidence in the metabolic profiling and transcriptomic data in the paper. Nevertheless, they recognize that the irregularities in image presentation could collectively decrease confidence in the conclusions.The authors apologise to the scientific community for any confusion caused by these errors. All authors agree to this retraction.


STXBP1-Related Disorder Patient Neurons,” by van Berkel et al. .Erratum to: “Reduced MUNC18-1 Levels, Synaptic Proteome Changes, and Altered Network Activity in STXBP1 mutation pathogenic for this patient is c.704G>A, p.Arg235Gln, and not c.[922A>T], p.[Lys308(∗)]. According to the authors, the reporting mistake in the previous article was caused by a mix-up between the mutations of two different patients affected by the same condition.A correction for this article has become necessary, as the mutation originally reported as K308X for patient 5 should instead be R235Q. Specifically, authors of a previous study, on which this study was partially built, recently found that the All references to this mutation have now been corrected to R235Q.


Retraction Note : Cellular & Molecular Biology Letters (2019) 24:13 10.1186/s11658-019-0137-1The Editor in Chief has retracted this article because of concerns about the data presented. Specifically, the flow cytometry plots presented in Fig. 1E show a significant similarity to the plots presented in a previously published paper with no common authors . The Edi


Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article.I read with great interest the paper by Sinha et al. about Takotsubo syndrome (TS) in subjects undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) based on multicenter retrospective database.I have two comments and questions for the author: (1) Have you taken into consideration coronary spastic angina (CSA)? It is well known that CSA can be caused by direct thermal damage resulting from radiofrequency (RF) energy or an autonomic nervous system imbalance.


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. As a result, the data and conclusions of the article have been deemed unreliable and the article has been retracted.The retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to the retraction.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-44979-6, published online 21 June 2019Retraction of:The Editors have retracted this article.An investigation by Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences has concluded that the content of four images in Fig. 10b appears to have been misrepresented.1 and to PBS image in Fig. 4 of2.The PBS control appears identical to b-FGF + 7 in Fig. 43.The b-FGF image appears identical to VEGF in ‘corrected’ Fig. 2A of1 and to b-FGF + Au-glucose in Fig. 4 of2.The b-FGF + DAT image appears identical to b-FGF + 5 in Fig. 4 of1 and to b-FGF + Ag-DAPHP in Fig. 4 of2.The b-FGF + N-DAT image appears identical to b-FGF + tetrac in Fig. 4 ofSpecifically:The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented.Murat Yalcin, Qishan Lin, Kavitha Godugu, Kazutoshi Fujioka, Kelly A. Keating & Shaker A. Mousa did not respond to the correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were not able to confirm the current contact details for Weikun Li and Dhruba J. Bharali.