Abstract
After publication of the original article [1], a reader noted that one reference cited in the main text had not been mentioned in the References section. The reference (Qin et al., [2]) was cited as Ref. 33 within the text, but mistakenly did not appear in the References. As such the total number of References was also incorrect – there should have been 36 in total. References 33 – 35 should have been numbered 34 – 36 in the main text and in the References section.
Highlights
Erratum After publication of the original article [1], a reader noted that one reference cited in the main text had not been mentioned in the References section.
Summary
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
