Correction to: The Pyroglutamate Hydantoin Rearrangement (European Journal of Organic Chemistry, (2006), 2006, 11, (2649-2660), 10.1002/ejoc.200600051)

The editorial office of the European Journal of Organic Chemistry (EurJOC) was informed on March 9th, 2018 that in the original article NMR data were given that had already been published earlier and were associated with two previous publications with different structures., Both papers were corrected shortly afterwards by stating this misinterpretation, and announcing a structure revision based on X-ray data in a subsequent full paper. The aforementioned EurJOC paper Wolfgang Robien, University of Vienna The authors of the paper now offer the following explanation and correction: “In 2005, our group published two papers, as two short articles describing the conversion of pyroglutamates to what we thought at the time were diazepinediones. After the comments of a company that was active in the field and that gave us a hint that this conversion was probably wrong, we analyzed the data again and concluded that indeed not diazepinediones, but hydantoins had been formed. We therefore published corrections for both short papers, and promised that we would publish a full paper (see amendment published in Chem. Commun., additions and corrections on December 15th, 2005) with all data including an X-ray analysis to prove indeed the structure of the hydantoins. This paper was published in EurJOC in 2006, since we could not publish a full paper in Org. Lett. or Chem. Commun. In this article, the correct conversion with the spectral data are published that were not reported correctly in the initial two publications. An independent reviewer of EurJOC now also analyzed the data and states that it was very clearly an occasional misinterpretation of data. However, the two papers with the wrong structural assignments, were not referenced in the EurJOC paper in order not to circulate references with wrong data. After a recent complaint by a reader stating that we intentionally left out these references to publish the same research twice, we want to state firmly that this is absolutely not the case and that it was done with the intention not to communicate and distribute references with incorrect results to the scientific community. There was absolutely no intention to fool the system. However, we also want to deal with the recent complaint, and therefore we have asked the editorial office at EurJOC to publish this fact and to add the two references. The missing references are given below. I do hope that this clarifies the misinterpretation of data that occurred 12 years ago and the scientific community now has all the details about the way this misinterpretation was handled.” Christian Stevens and coauthors.