About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘surgery retractions’ Category

Surgery journal adds detail to retraction notice following Retraction Watch coverage

with one comment

j surg oncLast month, we wrote about the retraction of a study in the Journal of Surgical Oncology (JSO) for duplication. But we were a bit frustrated by the lack of information in the notice. As we wrote at the time:

It would be nice to know a couple of things here. For example, when and where was the duplicated paper published? And who were the authors?

Well, we’ve heard from the journal, and have some updates. Brittany White, managing editor of the JSO, tells us, on behalf of editor-in-chief Stephen F. Sener, that: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by amarcus41

January 15, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Who’s on first? Paper on “the ethics of being first” retracted because it was…second

with 8 comments

value inquiryHas anyone seen our irony meter?

The author of a 2003 study on “the ethics of being first” is retracting it because it turns out he had already published it elsewhere — making it, well, not first.

Here’s the retraction notice for “Surgical Research and the Ethics of Being First,” the Journal of Value Inquiry paper: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

November 15, 2013 at 11:30 am

Sir, that’s not my colon: Journal has a bite of a chicken and egg problem

with 2 comments

Case report: An 85-year-old man eats some chicken and unknowingly swallows a bone. After two days of worsening abdominal pain, he shows up to the emergency room. A CT scan reveals the bone perforating his colon. He is rushed to surgery, which is successful. Then, during his otherwise uneventful recovery, he develops female breasts.

That’s not exactly the case report that showed up in the International Journal of Surgical Case Reports earlier this month, but then again, the images in the relevant case report aren’t exactly of someone’s colon, either.

With a warning that the clinical images below are mildly NSFW, here’s Figure 1 from the cleverly titled “Chicken or the leg: Sigmoid colon perforation by ingested poultry fibula proximal to an occult malignancy:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

August 28, 2013 at 9:30 am

Med student loses paper when former boss claims right to data

with 67 comments

jnsAs a first-year medical student at the University of California, San Diego, Jessica Tang already has an impressive CV. Her name has appeared on ten papers in the medical literature, including three in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. On one of these she was the sole author.

Except that one doesn’t exist anymore. But the reason for the retraction does not appear to involve shoddy work by the researcher. Rather, Tang failed to appreciate the politics of the lab in which she worked — and it cost her.

Read the rest of this entry »

Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

with 11 comments

biol conservToday brings two journal editorials about misconduct and retractions. They take, if we may, a bit of an optimistic and perhaps even blindered approach.

In an editorial titled “Scientific misconduct occurs, but is rare,” Boston University’s Richard Primack, editor of Biological Conservation, highlights a Corrigendum of a paper by Jesus Angel Lemus, the veterinary researcher who has retracted seven papers: Read the rest of this entry »

Transplant journal retracts three papers over possible organ trafficking

leave a comment »

exptclintransThe journal Experimental and Clinical Transplantation has retracted three papers by a group of Lebanese researchers who appear to have been engaging in illicit trafficking of human kidneys.

According to the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Look ma, no guidelines! Paper on unpublished fetal surgery recommendations retracted

with 5 comments

clinperinatcoverClinics in Perinatology has a rather intriguing retraction.

The paper in question was a June 2012 review by a group of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco’s division of pediatric surgery, titled “Maternal-Fetal Surgery:  History and General Considerations.”

According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Double bind: Duplication of bandaging paper leads to retraction

with one comment

The Journal of Vascular Surgery is retracting — with vigor — a paper it published online in March after discovering that the authors had published essentially the same article for the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology some months earlier.

Both papers are titled “Randomized controlled trial comparing treatment outcome of two compression bandaging systems and standard care without compression in patients with venous leg ulcers.” The work was funded by the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau of Hong Kong and a grant from Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH & Co KG, a German company that makes compression bandages and other surgical supplies.

According to the retraction notice in JVS: Read the rest of this entry »

“Misconduct” leads to retraction from Italian “super surgeon” under house arrest

with 23 comments

Has the Annals of Thoracic Surgery had a change of heart? Evidently the publication that told us nearly two years ago, in effect, that the reasons for retractions in its pages were “none of [our] damn business” has decided that information is worth sharing after all.

The ATS has retracted a paper it published in October. The article, titled “Development and Validation of a New Outcome Score in Subglottic Stenosis,” came from a group of researchers in Florence, Italy.

As the notice explains: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

November 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm

You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

with 4 comments

photo by Mark Turnauckas via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/marktee/

As we’ve noted before, we generally let duplication retractions make their way to the bottom of our to-do pile, since there’s often less of an interesting story behind them, duplication is hardly the worst of publishing sins, and the notices usually tell the story. (These are often referred to — imprecisely — as “self-plagiarism.”)

But that skews what’s represented here — boy, are there a lot of duplication retractions we haven’t covered! — and we might as well be more comprehensive. Plus, our eagle-eyed readers may find issues that we won’t see on a quick scan.

So with this post, we’re inaugurating a new feature here at Retraction Watch, “You’ve been dupe’d.” Every now and then, we’ll gather five of these duplication retractions at a time, and post them so they get into the mix, and into our category listing (see drop-down menu in right-hand column if you haven’t already). Here are the first five: Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,391 other followers