The Journal of International Oral Health has retracted a 2014 paper on dental pain by a group from India. Although the ostensible reason was plagiarism, we wonder if the offending authors might gone a bit further.
The article, “Sniffing out pain: An in vivo intranasal study of analgesic efficacy,” purported to be a study of 20 patients receiving different therapies for emergency oral pain. It has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the abstract:
BACKGROUND:
Orofacial pain is a common encounter in dentistry (affecting 12% of the population) and is a primary reason for patients seeking emergency care. Dentists often prescribe oral analgesics, which have disadvantages of decreased absorption rates and delayed onset. Intranasal (IN) delivery takes advantage of a large surface area of mucosal tissue for rapid absorption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of IN ketorolac for endodontic pain using a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled parallel design study.
MATERIALS & METHODS:
Twenty patients presenting with moderate to severe endodontic pain were selected to receive IN treatment with placebo (n = 10) or ketorolac (n = 10) 30 minutes before endodontic treatment was started and immediately after the completion of endodontic treatment. Baseline pain levels were recorded before IN treatment. Pain levels were also recorded at 15 and 30 minutes after the initial IN dosing (before endodontic treatment); 30 minutes after completion of endodontic treatment; and 4, 8, and 12 hours after the initial IN spray.
RESULTS:
IN ketorolac alone or with endodontic treatment showed significantly better pain relief compared with IN placebo spray alone or with endodontic treatment at 30 minutes after the first or second intranasal dose and at 4 hours after the first intranasal dose.
CONCLUSIONS:
These results suggest that IN ketorolac may provide a novel and efficacious method for pain relief in endodontic pain patients. How to cite the article: Maroli S, Srinath HP, Goinka C, Yadav NS, Bhardwaj A, Varghese RK. Sniffing out pain: An in vivo intranasal study of analgesic efficacy. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):66-71.
But now comes this, from the journal:
It has been brought to the notice of Editorial Board; Journal of International Oral Health: An Official Publication of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry that substantial amount of referred article has been plagiarized from the article:
Turner CL, Eggleston GW, Lunos S, Johnson N, Wiedmann TS, Bowles WR. Sniffing out endodontic pain: Use of an intranasal analgesic in a randomized clinical trial. J Endod 2011;37(4):439-44.
The practice was confirmed after due assessment of the contents in both the articles. In order to condemn such practices in future with special emphasis in regards to plagiarism, Editorial Board, JIOH decided to retract the published article from the assigned issue. Editorial Board, JIOH shows strict disagreement with such acts and intimates its serious concern for unethical issue like plagiarism.
We took a look at the abstract of the 2011 article:
INTRODUCTION:
Orofacial pain is a common encounter in dentistry (affecting 12% of the population) and is a primary reason for patients seeking emergency care. Dentists often prescribe oral analgesics, which have disadvantages of decreased absorption rates and delayed onset. Intranasal (IN) delivery takes advantage of a large surface area of mucosal tissue for rapid absorption. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of IN ketorolac for endodontic pain using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel design study.
METHODS:
Twenty-two patients presenting with moderate to severe endodontic pain were selected to receive IN treatment with placebo (n = 11) or ketorolac (n = 11) 30 minutes before endodontic treatment was started and immediately after the completion of endodontic treatment. Baseline pain levels were recorded before IN treatment. Pain levels were also recorded at 15 and 30 minutes after the initial IN dosing (before endodontic treatment); 30 minutes after completion of endodontic treatment; and 4, 8, and 12 hours after the initial IN spray. Primary analysis was a repeated-measures analysis of variance.
RESULTS:
IN ketorolac alone or with endodontic treatment showed significantly better pain relief compared with IN placebo spray alone or with endodontic treatment at 30 minutes after the first or second intranasal dose and at 4 hours after the first intranasal dose (P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS:
These results suggest that IN ketorolac may provide a novel and efficacious method for pain relief in endodontic pain patients.
Talk about a set of false teeth! In other words, although the journal’s vigorous condemnation of plagiarism is great, we wonder how the article got published in the first place…
“we wonder how the article got published in the first place…” Exactly, we need a balanced perspective of every single retraction case. Simply because it represents another failed traditional peer review. Every time we see a retraction notice, no doubt we have to spank the authors on the hand for their deeds, and punish them with at least a retraction and public shaming here at RW.
But, as the last phrase of this story suggests, we also have to keep a watchful eye on the publisher, editors and peers, too, and query their process. Because they all share common responsibility from submission to acceptance, and finally through to publication. Communal acceptance of the error, and not this arrogant top-down attitude from a moral higher ground that we are witnessing in almost 100% of retraction notices that is skewing the actual panorama of retraction-related responsibility, is what is going to be the ultimate downfall of these publishers.
I decided to explore who the publisher was, thinking perhaps that it might be a main-stream STM publisher. I was wrong. A few hnts as to who they are, and what might be wrong, at least on the surface. Most definately a candidate journal and publisher for Jeffrey Beall to examine in more detail.
1) Footer of journal web-site states: © Journal of International Oral Health.
This is odd considering that the publisher is Intellectual Medical and Dental (iMD) Publishers.
2) So, I wonder if Intellectual Medical and Dental Publishers would be kind enough to release the “peer review” reports of this paper, so that they can wash their hands free of responsibility for any lack of professionalism.
3) The header of the publisher’s web-page http://www.imdpublishers.com/ is rather curious, to say the least: “A pinnacle broadcast for phrenic researchers”. To be honest, I had not even heard of the word phrenic in my life before, so I looked it up. An online medical dictionary broadly described the term as one of two things: Of or relating to the mind, or the diaphragm. That ambiguity in itself is fascinating, because I am not even sure if 90% of the authorship to this publisher’s journals even understand this ambiguity.
4) Stats: Journals – 4; Total Articles Published – 1069; Bibliographic Listings – 15; Manuscripts Submitted – 1823.
5) Contact us at
Registered Office:
M/s. Intellectual Medical and Dental Publishers
A-2/104, Silver Estate Co-Op HSG Society,
NIBM Kondhwa Road, Pune – 411048. Maharashtra. India.
Listed at:
http://www.ijdcr.com/contact-us/
“A pinnacle broadcast for phrenic researchers”
Also, “An Epistolize Caricature for Oral Scribers”.