Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘surgery retractions’ Category

Retraction and republication for Lancet Resp Med tracheostomy paper

with one comment

lancetrmA paper whose expression of concern we covered in November 2014 has been retracted and republished “because of the extent of the changes necessary,” according to the Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen retraction/republications at the Lancetaccompanied by thorough breakdowns of the problem.

This study was a meta-analysis of research on how the timing of tracheostomies — placing a breathing tube directly into the windpipe — affects patients’ mortality rate. The original paper found that critically ill patients who received a tracheostomy earlier fared better than those for whom the procedure was delayed for weeks after intubation, the recommended practice.

However, when the authors calculated how many patients died, they assumed that any patient who wasn’t discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) had died there, instead of looking for other explanations. This made their estimates unreliable.

The publisher convened a panel, which ultimately decided retraction and republication was the most appropriate course of action.

The original expression of concern contained a quote from the authors about the “data discrepancy” that would later sink the paper: Read the rest of this entry »

BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review

with 20 comments

bmc logoBioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving third-party companies selling the service.

In November 2014 we wrote about fake peer reviews for Nature; at that point there had been about 110 retractions across several journals. The addition of 16 retractions by Elsevier for the same reason, and today’s 43 from BMC, brings retractions resulting from the phenomenon up to about 170.

BMC has also contacted institutions regarding 60 additional papers that were rejected for publication, but seem to be part of the same kind of scam. Regarding the third-party agents, BMC senior editor of scientific integrity Elizabeth Moylan writes: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

March 26th, 2015 at 12:05 pm

First cut is the deepest: paper on incisional hernia sliced for duplication

without comments

jamcolsurgeonsThe authors of a 2014 paper in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons about incisional hernia have lost their article for being a duplicate submission.

The paper, “Impact on Quality of Life of Using an Onlay Mesh to Prevent Incisional Hernia in Midline Laparotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” came from a group at the Parc Tauli University Hospital, part of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, in Spain.

By duplicating another paper, the authors (three of which appear to be listed on both papers) committed “a severe abuse of the scientific publishing system,” according to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

February 12th, 2015 at 11:30 am

Lancet journal puts ICU paper on watch after authors acknowledge potentially fatal flaw

with 2 comments

lancetrmLancet Respiratory Medicine has issued an expression of concern for a meta-analysis on tracheostomy in the intensive care unit that they published earlier this year.

The paper, “Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis“, came from a group at Harvard, Weill Cornell and the University of Athens. The authors purported to find that: Read the rest of this entry »

“Significant” copying forces retraction of sternotomy paper

with one comment

icatsInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery has yanked a 2005 sternotomy paper by a group of researchers who plagiarized from an earlier article on the subject.

The article, “The complications of repeat median sternotomy in paediatrics: six-months follow-up of consecutive cases,” came from a team at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester, England, and has been cited eight times, according to Scopus.

Here’s the notice:

Read the rest of this entry »

“Our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize”

with one comment

joms.13692132This one’s not a retraction, but rather a back and forth of letters to the editor concerning accusations of plagiarism.

Dentists Bryan and Paul Jacobs, a father and son team, wrote a paper describing a novel surgical technique in March 2013. In October 2013, several Croatian dentists published their own paper using the technique.

A year later, the story has gotten a little more interesting. The November issue of the Journal of Oral and Mixillofacial Surgery, which published the second article, has two letters. One, from the Jacobses, accuses the Croatian authors of plagiarism. The second is a response from author Dragana Gabrić Pandurić, claiming “our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.”

Here’s the letter from Bryan and Paul Jacobs (paywalled): Read the rest of this entry »

Misconduct prompts retraction of prostatectomy paper

with 2 comments

jsrcoverA group of urologists in China has lost their 2012 paper in the Journal of Surgical Research because one of the authors was evidently rather naughty.

The article, “Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study,” purported to show that: Read the rest of this entry »

Dubai-ous: Journal yanks surgery paper for consent, data issues

with one comment

Low-Res-Annals-95_4-Cover-1_smallThe Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England has retracted a 2013 article by a group from Dubai and Italy after learning of serious issues with the data in the report.

The article, “Transanal haemorrhoidal dearterialisation with mucopexy versus stapler haemorrhoidopexy: a randomised trial with long term follow-up,” purportedly described a long-term telephone follow-up study of patients who had undergone the procedure. Here’s the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

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 »