Retraction Notice
Retraction Notice - 3
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 2017, Vol. 16(1) 134 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1533034616681924 journals.sagepub.com/home/tct
The following article has been retracted as a result of our confirming manipulation of the peer-review process by submitting author, Hui-Liu Zhao: ‘‘Relationship Between Aldosterone Synthase CYP1A1 MspI Gene Polymorphism and Prostate Cancer Risk,’’ by Chao Ou, PhD, Yan Zhao, PhD, Jiang-Hua Liu, PhD, Bo Zhu, PhD, Pei-Zhang Li, PhD, and Hui-Liu Zhao, PhD, Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, DOI: 10.1177/1533034615625519 After investigating the peer-review process for the article, SAGE and Editor have determined that the submitting author supplied fabricated contact details for legitimate individuals named as recommended reviewers for the articles. The Editor accepted the paper based on the peer-review comments submitted from the discredited e-mail accounts. SAGE and the Editor apologize to readers and regret that the academic record has been compromised as a result of this manipulation of the peerreview process.
Retraction Notice - 3
Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 2017, Vol. 16(1) 134 ª The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1533034616681924 journals.sagepub.com/home/tct
The following article has been retracted as a result of our confirming manipulation of the peer-review process by submitting author, Hui-Liu Zhao: ‘‘Relationship Between Aldosterone Synthase CYP1A1 MspI Gene Polymorphism and Prostate Cancer Risk,’’ by Chao Ou, PhD, Yan Zhao, PhD, Jiang-Hua Liu, PhD, Bo Zhu, PhD, Pei-Zhang Li, PhD, and Hui-Liu Zhao, PhD, Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, DOI: 10.1177/1533034615625519 After investigating the peer-review process for the article, SAGE and Editor have determined that the submitting author supplied fabricated contact details for legitimate individuals named as recommended reviewers for the articles. The Editor accepted the paper based on the peer-review comments submitted from the discredited e-mail accounts. SAGE and the Editor apologize to readers and regret that the academic record has been compromised as a result of this manipulation of the peerreview process.
