Retraction Notice To: Potential Health Benefits of Broccoli-A Chemico-Biological Overview

The article “Potential health benefits of broccoli- a chemico-biological overview, published in Mini-Rev Med Chem 2009 Jun;9(6):749-59. By Hannah R. Vasanthi, Subhendu Mukherjee and Dipak K. Das” has been retracted by the Editorial office of the journal Mini-reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, as the text in this review article are from sources which have been retracted or under investigation on the basis of data fabrication and falsification, authorship misconduct, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, text recycling/self-plagiarism, and unresolved concerns about data integrity and research conduct. The authors were informed of this complaint and were requested to give justification on the matter in their defense [1]. Some sources that have been retracted are as follows: 1) Agarwal et al. Dynamic Action of Carotenoids in Cardioprotection and Maintenance of Cardiac Health, Molecules 2012, 17, 4755-4769. http: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24896014/ 2) Nagendran Balasundram, KalyanaSundram, SamirSamman. Phenolic compounds in plants and agri-industrial byproducts: Antioxidant activity, occurrence, and potential uses. Food Chemistry 2006, 99(1), 191-203. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814605006242 Bentham Science apologizes to the readers of the journal for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Retraction can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php. REFERENCES [1] Hannah R Vasanthi, Subhendu Mukherjee, Dipak K Das. Potential health benefits of broccoli- a chemico-biological overview. Mini Rev Med Chem., 2009, 9(6), 749-759. doi: 10.2174/138955709788452685. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19519500/ Bentham Science Disclaimer: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.

Retracted Note: Effects of Vitamin K2 on Osteoporosis

The article entitled “Effects of Vitamin K2 on Osteoporosis, published in Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10(21): 2557-76, by Iwamoto J, Takeda T and Sato Y.” has been retracted by the Editorial office of the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design, as the text, data and some figures used/referred in this review article are from sources which have been retracted or under investigation on the basis of data fabrication and falsification, authorship misconduct, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, text recycling/self-plagiarism, and unresolved concerns about data integrity and research conduct. The authors were informed of this complaint and were requested to give justification on the matter in their defense. However, no reply was received from their side in this regard. Some sources that have been retracted are as follows: 1. Iwamoto J, Takeda T, Ichimura S. Combined treatment with vitamin K2 and bisphosphonate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Yonsei Med J 2003; 44: 751-6. Available at: https://eymj.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3349/ymj.2019.60.1.115. 2. Sato Y, Honda Y, Kuno H, Oizumi K. Menatetrenone ameliorates osteopenia in disuse-affected limbs of vitamin D- and K-deficient stroke patients. Bone 1998; 23: 291-6. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328298001082. 3. Sato Y, Honda Y, Kaji M, Asoh T, Hosokawa K, Kondo I, et al. Amelioration of osteoporosis by menatetrenone in elderly female Parkinson's disease patients with vitamin D deficiency. Bone 2002; 31: 114-8. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ 12110423/. Bentham Science apologizes to its readers for any inconvenience this may have caused. The Bentham Editorial Policy on Article Retraction can be found at https://benthamscience.com/editorial-policies-main.php. Bentham Science Disclaimer: It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to this journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. Furthermore, any data, illustration, structure or table that has been published elsewhere must be reported, and copyright permission for reproduction must be obtained. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden, and by submitting the article for publication the authors agree that the publishers have the legal right to take appropriate action against the authors, if plagiarism or fabricated information is discovered. By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree that the copyright of their article is transferred to the publishers if and when the article is accepted for publication.

Is reusing text from a protocol in the completed systematic review acceptable?

Published protocols have the potential to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews (SR). When reporting the results of a completed SR, the question might arise whether text used in the protocol can also be used in the completed SR? Does this constitute text recycling, plagiarism, or even copyright infringement? In theory, no major changes to the protocol will be expected for the introduction and methods sections if the SR is completed in time. The benefits of maintaining the introduction and methods section of a protocol in the published SR are straightforward. Authors will require less time for writing up the completed SR. Potential benefits can also be expected for peer reviewers and editors. However, reusing text can be described as self-plagiarism. The question to be answered is whether this type of self-plagiarism is acceptable when copying text used previously (as would be the case when copying text from the protocol and pasting it into the subsequent completed SR)? The “traditional answer” to this question is “yes” because authors should not get credit for one piece of work for more than one time unless the work is cited appropriately. In contrast, we propose that in this context, it seems to be fully acceptable from a scientific and ethical perspective. As such, authors should not be accused of plagiarism in this case, but rather be encouraged to be efficient. However, legal issues need to be taken into consideration (e.g., copyright). We hope to stimulate a discussion on this topic among authors, readers, editors, and publishers.

Self-Plagiarism in AAAS Science Article about Pubpeer’s President, Brandon Stell

In publishing ethics, self-plagiarism or text recycling is subject to a correction or retraction. This paper examines a high-profile case of ethical exceptionalism in the publishing status quo. Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, a science writer for the magazine Science, published by The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), was the first reporter to publicly reveal the identity of Brandon Stell, the President of The PubPeer Foundation, which owns PubPeer, a science whistle-blower website. The AAAS is a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) member publisher. Couzin-Frankel published two articles, one of which self-plagiarized (i.e., the use of text written by the same person but not properly cited, or acknowledged) about 25% of text in the other article. Couzin-Frankel has also employed nested self-citation, which is the citation of a separate part of a paper such as a table or text box, to give the impression of a separate publication. These aspects call into question how strictly information is vetted and edited at AAAS’s Science. Despite alerting the AAAS, this heavily self-plagiarized paper has not been corrected or retracted. How then do the AAAS and COPE justify the continued publication of both texts?