• Users Online: 1831
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 571-584

Retraction of papers authored by Yuhji Saitoh–Beyond the Fujii phenomenon

1 Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Gauhati Medical College, Guwahati, Assam, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Jorhat Medical College and Hospital, Jorhat, Assam, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Priyam Saikia
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati -781 032, Assam
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_267_19

Rights and Permissions

Background and Aims: Various aspects of retracted articles authored by Yoshitaka Fujii and their retraction notices have been examined. Yuhji Saitoh has coauthored many articles with Yoshitaka Fujii which were subsequently retracted. Japanese Society of Anesthesiology(JSA) recommends retraction of various articles by Yuhji Saitoh, but various attributes of those and their retraction notices have not been examined. Methods: A list of retracted articles was retrieved from PubMed, Retraction Watch Database and relevant journals. Their retraction notices were obtained from the journal's webpage. Predefined characteristics of the retracted articles and their retraction notices were evaluated against those proposed by Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE). Results: Fifteen such articles were retracted. Two of them were not identified as retracted in the journal webpage. Half of the papers mentioned by JSA are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, only 13.3% retraction notices were in line with the guidelines published by the COPE. Two retracted articles are yet to be flagged as retracted in PubMed. The median (interquartile range) time required for retraction from the date of declaration of being eligible for retraction is 14(3) months. Data were analysed with Microsoft Excel™(2007). Conclusion: Even after more than 1 year of recommendation, many articles containing evidence of scientific misconduct are yet to be retracted. Among those retracted, the relevant authority failed to follow the prevalent and well-regarded standards of ethics in scholarly publication.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded306    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal