Earlier this week, we reported on the case of Edward Shang, a weight loss surgeon who was forced to retract a study after it became clear that he had enrolled only about a third as many patients as he claimed — if he enrolled any at all. In that post, the editor in chief of Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases, who retracted the paper, told us he had flagged the issue for Obesity Surgery editors, who had also published Shang’s work.
Yesterday, we heard back from the editor of Obesity Surgery, Scott Shikora, who tells us that he’s reviewed Shang’s four publications in his journal:
- Results of Sleeve Gastrectomy—Data from a Nationwide Survey on Bariatric Surgery in Germany
- A Nationwide Survey on Bariatric Surgery in Germany—Results 2005–2007
- First Experiences with A Circular Stapled Gastro-Jejunostomy by a New Transorally Introducible Stapler System in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass
- Evidence of Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Bariatric Surgery—Results of a Quality Assurance Trial in Bariatric Surgery in Germany from 2005 to 2007 and Review of the Literature
He was only first author of one of them, however, on circular stapled gastro-jejunostomy. Even there, Shikora said:
We concluded that his role was minimal and there was no need to retract the paper.
Shikora wouldn’t say whether a strongly worded editorial he published last month was about Shang, but said we “can read between the lines.”
Please see an update on this post.
THese people profess to accurately inform the public but now the readers have to
“read between the lines”! I, for one, don’t appreciate having to be a detective
when reading scientific reports.
He was first author, but his role was minimal?? Am I the only one that is confused???
No, you are not confused, the editors and authors are. You see things as
they should be,but how they really are is different.
Typically, the asterisk next to a person’s name indicates the author who contributed the least to the published research. Strange but true.
@chirality: obviously you have no clue what it takes to run a research program
@ MT Orr: I have always wondered, if it takes that much to run A research program, how can those people publish 50 papers a year…
I am not talking about running a research program but about doing actual research. Two different things. The bigger the fish, the less it has to do with research and more with “running things”.
Always been very sceptical about surgery when it comes to weight loss.
I much prefer working programs, like the one I’ve been using http://gmdiets.com/reviews/a-personalized-diet-for-you/ where you just keep track and are in control.
Ahh spam comments. How much you add to the scientific discourse we’ll never know, because clicking your link sets off my internet malware alarms like magic.
As the last World Cup saw, Brazil is not the same. Check out the retraction notice below:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1517-86922011000600002&script=sci_arttext
I think this adds to RW records.
Obviously, Shang’s first author paper “First Experiences with A Circular Stapled Gastro-Jejunostomy by a New Transorally Introducible Stapler System in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass” in Obesity Surgery was already retracted a couple of days earlier: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l608856232105954/fulltext.html
Is it possible that you misconceived Shikora?
Very odd, thanks for flagging that, Ralf. We’ve posted an update and are trying to figure out what’s happened: http://www.retractionwatch.com/2012/05/08/puzzling-maybe-weight-loss-surgery-paper-by-author-who-acknowledged-fraud-is-being-retracted-after-all/