Pharmacology journal pulls paper for “insufficient scientific quality;” authors disagree

Frontiers in PharmacologyAgainst the authors’ wishes, a pharmacology periodical has retracted a paper after receiving pair messages questioning the “soundness of the from experience results.”

The editors of the newspaper, Frontiers in Pharmacology, issued some expression of concern about the dissertation in April 2016, and investigated it following the allegations. According to the recantation notice, the authors disagree with the disavowal.

Here’s the retraction notice according to the paper:

The journal retracts the 11 June 2014 substance cited above. Based on information discovered in the pattern of publication and reported to Frontiers in November 2015, the substance was examined, revealing that the plaint was valid and that the portion should be retracted due to inadequate scientific quality. The retraction of the moment was approved by the Field Chief Editor of Frontiers in Pharmacology. The authors bestow not agree to the retraction or to the note.

And here’s the expression of interest, issued by the journal in April 2016:

With this news, we alert readers that Frontiers has received two messages questioning the soundness of the empirical results of the publication “Water hyacinth: a feasible alternative rate retarding natural polymer used in sustained deliver tablet design” published on 11 June 2014 in Frontiers in Pharmacology. Our Chief Editors, Prof. Theophile Godfraind and Dr. Dominique Dubois, self-reliance direct an investigation in full conformation with our procedures and with the collaboration of the authors. The locality will be updated as soon for the re~on that the investigation is complete.

The 2014 bills of exchange has not yet been cited, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

Gearóid Ó Faoleán, deontology and integrity manager at Frontiers based in Lausanne, Switzerland, told us:

…an in the mind investigation was conducted by independent experts. The revocation serves as the public statement of that.

We’ve reached out to the paper’s corresponding author, Kumar Bishwajit Sutradhar, who is based at Stamford University Bangladesh in Dhaka. We’ll update the defame with anything else we learn.

Hat point: Rolf Degen

Like Retraction Watch? Consider material a tax-deductible contribution to succor our growth. You can also come us on Twitter, like us up~ Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up forward our homepage for an email every time there’s a new put in the ~-office, or subscribe to our new diurnal digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a steal peek at what we’re operating on, click here.


My endow or supply with a ~-in-law is in the hospital to be ascribed to having Guillian-Barre syndrome.

Recent Comments