We have noticed that several sentences in a review article by Drs. Jung and Roh published in J Clin Neurol [Circulating endothelial progenitor cells in cerebrovascular disease, J Clin Neurol 2008;4(4):139-147] are identical from those in an article by Dr. Rouhl et al. published in Stroke [Endothelial progenitor cell research in stroke: a potential shift in pathophysiological and therapeutical concepts, Stroke 2008;39(7):2158-2165]. The text of the Jung and Roh article neither mentions nor cites the article by Rouhl and colleagues. A review of this case by the editorial committee of Journal of Clinical Neurology concluded that Drs. Jung and Roh plagiarized the paper by Rouhl and colleagues. Drs. Jung and Roh have acknowledged the plagiarism in the original manuscript and given clear credit for the work of Dr. Rouhl and colleagues in a letter published in this issue as an "Apology". I regret that this has happened and that this plagiarism was not identified prior to publication.
We regret to announce that our recent review article [J Clin Neurol 2008;4:139-147] has portions of text identical to that of previously published review paper [Stroke 2008;39:2158-2165] by Rouhl et al, without the proper citation or quotation marks. We should have clearly cited the original source (Dr. Rouhl's article) relevant to our review article. We indicate that this action is exclusively plagiarism and we wish that this letter offers clear recognition to the source we used in our paper. We sincerely apologize for our misconduct and wish to ascertain that it was an unintentional oversight. We would like to express our most sincere apology to Dr. Rouhl and the Stroke Journal and to the Editor and readers of Journal of Clinical Neurology.