Retraction: Glyphosate Use Predicts ADHD Hospital Discharges in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Net (HCUPnet): A Two-Way Fixed-Effects Analysis
The publisher wishes to retract this paper because it was published in error. This paper was editorially rejected following peer review and consultation with the Editorial Board. Unfortunately , the production process was erroneously completed on this paper resulting in publication , and the publisher apologizes for this mistake. open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Editors must be vigilant to guarantee the quality and credibility of published scientific work
Scientific journals are designed to communicate primary scientific research and are committed to maintain high standards in order to keep the integrity of the scientific record. The editor-in-chief and the editorial board of a scientific journal are responsible for the entire content of a scientific journal, and it is their responsibility to evaluate the quality and the validity of submitted manuscripts with due respect to the stated aims and standards of their journals. After editorial and peer review, the editor-in-chief ultimately decides whether manuscripts can be published or not. Usually, the editor sends manuscripts for review to independent experts who are not part of the editorial board. Papers may also be rejected without external review, which is at the discretion of the editor. However, there are unfortunately many scientific journals around that do not undertake editorial or peer reviews and at the same time ask for a publication fee (so-called predatory publishing). The Journal Evaluation Tool may be a helpful tool to determine whether a scientific journal is a credible publication source (Rele et al. 2017). However, based on my long-standing experience as editor-in-chief of ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, there are two editorial difficulties that affect the quality and credibility of published work in scientific journals:
Stacked corn hybrids show inconsistent yield and economic responses in New York.
Stacked (two to three transgenic traits) corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids represented 40% of U.S. corn in 2008, despite limited agronomic studies. Field-scale studies were conducted on four farms in New York for 2 yr to evaluate the agronomics and economics of double-stacked {glyphosate resistance and Bt (Bacillus tburingiensis) European corn borer [Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner)] trait} hybrids when following soybean [Glycine Max (L.) Merr.], as well as triple-stacked [additional Bt corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) trait] hybrids in continuous corn. Stacked hybrids vs. near-isolines had mostly lower weed densities, root damage ratings, and stalk lodging under generally low pest and lodging conditions in both rotations. Double-stacked hybrids vs. near-isolines yielded similarly when following soybean, but 5.7 and 3.6% higher at two sites where lodging exceeded 11%, and similarly at two sites where lodging averaged <3% in near-isolines in continuous corn. Triple and double-stacked hybrids yielded similarly. Grain moisture averaged 15 g kg -1 greater in stacked hybrids vs. near-isolines in both rotations, but similarly between double and triple-stacked hybrids in continuous corn. Partial returns had site x hybrid trait interactions in both rotations as increased yield revenue offset increased drying costs for double-stacked hybrids vs. near-isolines for three site-rotation comparisons, resulting in $45 to $89 ha -1 profit gain, but not for two-site rotation comparisons, resulting in $47 to $71 ha -1 profit loss. If stacked hybrids with the Bt corn borer trait have higher grain moisture, growers in northern latitudes should balance potential corn borer occurrence against increased drying costs.