The authors of four papers have pulled them for “significant overlap” with other publications, as well as borrowing “large portions of text” — in other words, plagiarism.
Two of the newly retracted papers published in BMC Surgery also listed co-authors who were “not involved in the study;” a similar note appears for an additional 2015 retraction that we’ve found for one of the authors.
That one author is listed on all of the newly retracted papers: Bruno Amato of the University Federico II of Naples, Italy.
Here’s the retraction notice for “Peripheral blood mono-nuclear cells implantation in patients with peripheral arterial disease: a pilot study for clinical and biochemical outcome of neoangiogenesis,” which has been cited five times since it was published in November, 2012, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science:
This article [1] has been retracted by the authors due to significant overlap with a previous publications, including Tateno et al. [2] and Moriya et al. [3]. The authors apologise for failing to cite these articles. Claudio Terranova was not involved in the study and was introduced into the author list in error. All authors, including Claudio Terranova, have subsequently agreed that he did not qualify for authorship.
And here’s the retraction notice for “Undertreatment of breast cancer in the elderly,” which has so far been cited eight times since it was published in October 2013:
This article [1] has been retracted by the authors due to significant overlap with a previous publication by Malik et al. [2]. Gennaro Pagano was not involved in the study and was introduced into the author list in error by the corresponding author. All authors, including Gennaro Pagano, have subsequently agreed that he did not qualify for authorship. The remaining authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.
The other two notices don’t mention authorship disputes. First, “Observational study: daily treatment with a new compound “tradamixina” plus serenoa repens for two months improved the lower urinary tract symptoms,” which has been cited twice since it was published in November 2012. Here’s its retraction notice:
This article [1] has been retracted by the authors because it contains large portions of text that were duplicated from a number of pervious publications including Chapple et al. [2], Untergasser et al. [3] and Mariotto et al. [4]. The authors apologise for failing to cite these articles.
Next, “Stress urinary incontinence: long-term results of laparoscopic Burch colposuspension,” which has one citation to its name since publication in October 2013. Here’s its retraction notice:
This article [1] has been retracted by the authors because it contains large portions of text that were duplicated from a number of pervious publications including Rofeim et al. [2], Carey et al. [3] and Hong et al. [4]. The authors apologise for failing to cite these articles.
Finally, let’s take a look at the 2015 retraction that we’ve found for Amato, for “Breast cancer surgery in elderly patients: postoperative complications and survival,” also published by BMC Surgery.
This article [1] has been retracted by the authors due to significant overlap with a previous publication [2]. Giuseppe Rengo and Gennaro Pagano were not involved in the study and were introduced into the author list by the corresponding author. All authors, including Giuseppe Rengo and Gennaro Pagano, have subsequently agree that they did not qualify for authorship. The remaining authors apologize for any inconvenience caused.
This paper has gathered 11 citations since it was published in October, 2013.
A spokesperson for BioMed Central referred us to the retraction notices.
We’ve also reached out to Amato, and we’ll update the post with anything else we learn.
Hat Tip: Gaetan Burgio
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.
lagiarism — the use of other people’s words or ideas without giving proper credit — is only one part of the general problem of cheating. Anecdotal evidence as well as a few studies suggest that student cheating is much more widespread than usually recognised. (Although exams are thought to prevent cheating more than essays, actually the rate of cheating on exams may be higher than for any other assessment mode.)
Most cheating is undetected. For every student caught plagiarising, it is almost certain that many more plagiarisers escape detection.
Elimination of plagiarism by detection and penalties is labour-intensive and ultimately impossible. One article recommends that, to detect plagiarism, each essay be read four times. But this only picks up copying from published sources; copying from other essays, or false authorship of essays, is seldom detectable or provable.
More importantly, the policing approach to plagiarism is educationally counterproductive. Students should be encouraged to model themselves on the best thinkers and, at the same time, to think critically and originally. This is hardly possible if they are constantly being scrutinised for intentional or inadvertent plagiarism.
Paduraru pointed to a 5th Amato paper where the overlap of text and results is greater than might be expected from chance.
http://www.journal-surgery.net/article/S1743-9191(17)30020-1/fulltext
(h/t Ocasapiens)