↓ Skip to main content

Retraction: Nucleophagy in Human Disease: Beyond the Physiological Role. [Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2018, 244 (1), 75-81. doi: 10.1620/tjem.244.75. Review.]

Overview of attention for article published in Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 1,105)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
527 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Retraction: Nucleophagy in Human Disease: Beyond the Physiological Role. [Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2018, 244 (1), 75-81. doi: 10.1620/tjem.244.75. Review.]
Published in
Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1620/tjem.244.175
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ming Zhou, Hongwen Ji, Nian Fu, Linxi Chen, Yong Xia

Abstract

Retracted Review article: Nucleophagy in Human Disease: Beyond the Physiological Role. [Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 2018, 244 (1), 75-81. doi: 10.1620/tjem.244.75.]The above Review article was published online on January 27, 2018. Soon after its publication (on February 1, 2018), Dr. Nian Fu and Prof. Linxi Chen informed the Editor-in-Chief, The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine (TJEM), about serious violation of publication ethics. Indeed, Dr. Nian Fu and Prof. Linxi Chen were astonished to find their names as coauthors of this Review article, because they were not involved in the submission process of this Review article and they do not know any of other coauthors. In addition, the Review article is similar to their unpublished manuscript. After a thorough investigation in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Editor-in-Chief of TJEM decided to retract this Review article. The reasons for Retraction are summarized below: forged authors and an unexpected case of plagiarism. Forged authors: Dr. Nian Fu and Prof. Linxi Chen were added as co-authors of the Review article without their knowledge. In fact, the signature provided by Prof. Linxi Chen is apparently different from the signature of a coauthor, named Linxi Chen, on the AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITY FORM, provided by the corresponding author of the Review article. More critically, the signature provided by Dr. Nian Fu is completely different from the signature of Nian Fu, because the Chinese characters are different between the two signatures. In addition, the replies from three authors (Ming Zhou, Hongwen Ji and Yong Xia) clearly indicate that they misunderstand the identity of Dr. Nina Fu. We also attempted to contact two authors, named Nian Fu and Linxi Chen, via e-mail. As expected, the forged authors did not respond to our inquiries, despite that their e-mail addresses appear to be active. An unexpected case of plagiarism: This Review article is similar to the unpublished manuscript prepared by Dr. Nian Fu and Prof. Linxi Chen. Moreover, two figures used in the Review article are identical to the preliminary figures of their unpublished manuscript. According to Dr. Nian Fu, a local agency for language editing had transferred their unpublished manuscript to a third party. Unfortunately, the check system of TJEM is not effective for plagiarism of unpublished materials. We believe that the corresponding author of the Review article included the names of the original two authors to avoid the criticism of plagiarism. Eventually, the corresponding author agreed to retract the Review article.We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this retraction to readers. We also hope that the publication of the plagiarized Review article will not trouble Dr. Nian Fu and Prof. Linxi Chen too much.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 527 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 172. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2018.
All research outputs
#239,174
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine
#4
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,353
of 451,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine
#2
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.