Source: Department of Neurological Sciences, University of Rome, ”La Sapienza”, Viale dell’Università 30, 00185, Rome, Italy, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Retraction Note: Neurol Sci (2010) 31 (Suppl 2):S239–S243 DOI 10.1007/s10072-010-0379-1
Source: Department of Neurological Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy. email@example.com
Abstract: Cognitive dysfunction frequently occurs during the course of multiple sclerosis (MS). In patients with MS the severity of cognitive manifestations is not closely related to indices of structural brain damage. Neuroplasticity may contribute to the maintenance of normal performance despite scattered brain lesions. Changes in functional organization of the cerebral cortex have been reported by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies in MS. fMRI studies provide an interesting way of understanding how the brain changes its functional organization in response to MS, and might be useful in the study of the effects of rehabilitative or pharmacological therapy on brain plasticity. The purpose of this review is to examine major fMRI studies focusing on cognitive dysfunction in MS.
“It is a pity that our field gets tarnished in this way. Although plagiarism is rare it does occur and there are systems in place to self-regulate the field; hence the retraction and the retraction note. The reputational damage from this event will not be insignificant.”
“One form of plagiarism that occurs commonly in medical publishing is self-plagiarism; in that you recycle or reuse your own text. I am guilty of this; for example I have copied-and-pasted text from original research articles I have written into review articles I have been invited to write on the specific topics concerned; rather than generating reams of new text you simply modify the text to make sure it consistent with the style and context of the review. It is important that if you do this you reference the original article. As an editor this is okay. What is not allowed is to try and publish the same data or article, i.e. duplicate publications, without reference to the other article. This is fraudulent and not in keeping with publishing etiquette.”
“Some followers of this blog may want to accuse of plagiarism; we copy and paste frequently. The difference is that we always acknowledge the source of the information, by referencing it. The aim of this blog is to interpret research its clinical relevance. To do this we need to present the science and the data, hence the need to copy-and-paste.”
“Our moto is “INTERPRETING GOOD, BAD AND OTHER RESEARCH NEWS”.”
“We would be interested to hear your views on this topic?”