◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys5.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇   南方医院倪国新等人的论文因抄袭被撤稿   今年3月Journal of Clinical Rheumatology刊发的Tai Chi Improves Physical Function in Older Chinese Women With Knee Osteoarthritis(Issue: Volume 16(2), March 2010, pp 64-67)被编辑部确认抄袭而被撤稿, 耐人寻味 的是该文5个作者由四个单位构成:南方医院倪国新, 余斌,福州第二医院康复科 宋林, 福建医科大学体育部黄彩华, 福建医科大学副校长、附属第一医院院长林 建华.   Tai Chi Improves Physical Function in Older Chinese Women With Knee Osteoarthritis: Retraction   As the primary author of the article "Tai Chi Improves Physical Function in Older Chinese Women With Knee Osteoarthritis" (J Clin Rheumatol, 16, 64Y67) has admitted copying some phrases directly from Dr Wang and the Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China has provided no formal documentation that the work described was actually done, this article is being withdrawn.   REFERENCE   1. Ni GX, Song L, Yu B, et al. Tai chi improves physical function in older chinese women with knee osteoarthritis. J Clin Rheumatol.2010;16(2):64Y67.   H. Ralph Schumacher, MD   Dr Wang给编辑部去信(J Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Oct;16(7):356) 不仅指出 倪国新文中成段抄袭'Tai Chi for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: Designing a Longterm Follow-up Randomized Controlled Trial,' published by BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders on July 29, 2008. 而且还提出该文中内容真实性 的问题,主要内容:   First, as discussed above, Ni et al copied elements of their study design verbatim from our July 2008 BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders article. If the study design was copied in July 2008, we are deeply skeptical that the work described by Ni et al could have been accomplished in time for their article to have been reviewed and published by March 2010. Our skepticism is founded on 2 primary points: (1) we know that our research took 6.5 years to complete, and (2) the study design described in the article of Ni et al (including periods for subject recruitment; 6 months of study intervention; case report form development; instrumentation translation; outcome evaluation; data processing, analysis, and manuscript preparation) could not have been accomplished between July 29, 2008, and the time when the article had been received by the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology for review, June 29, 2009.   Second, the authors stated that they used a Canadian, English-language selfassessment questionnaire (WOMAC) to assess pain and physical function (references of 24-26 in the article of Ni et al). Ni et al did not describe translating this instrument into any Chinese dialect or language. The use of Ni et al of WOMAC and English-language knee pain scale raises several questions. How did the authors obtain a license to use the English version of WOMAC? How many older Chinese women participants with knee osteoarthritis could understand English questionnaires? If the Chinese versions were used, when were the English questionnaires translated into Chinese, and by whom? What is the evidence for validity and reliability of the Chinese instrumentation, especially for WOMAC?   Third, it is unclear which authority was tasked with protecting the human subjects who participated in the study of Ni et alVif in fact any such study was actually conducted. Ni et al reported that the study was approved by the "local institutional review board." We believe that the editors of the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology have requested, but not yet received, additional information from the authors related to the approval process, including determining what ethical review board reviewed the study, and whether the protocol and informed consent form had been approved.   Fourth, each author’s role was not explained in the article of Ni et al. It is unclear which of the listed authors was responsible for conducting both tai chi and attention control intervention and gathering the data. How was the single-blinded method maintained? Who analyzed the data? Who conducted the primary drafting of the paper that copied from others’ work?   In conclusion, we believe it is absolutely clear that the paper by Ni et al published in the March 2010 issue of Journal of Clinical Rheumatology is not original work. In addition to plagiarism of text from our publication, we are concerned that the clinical trial that Ni et al claim to have conducted as the basis for their article could not have happened as it was describedVand that the science itself may have been entirely fabricated. (XYS20101107) ◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys5.dxiong.com)(www.xinyusi.info)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇