Retracted or Withdrawn Publications in Journals Relating to Plastic Surgery

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine how many papers have been retracted or withdrawn, and for what reason, in journals relating to plastic surgery.PubMed and SCOPUS were used, with the search terms (retracted OR withdrawn) AND (article OR publication OR paper) AND {(plastic surgery) OR (cosmetic surgery) OR (maxillofacial surgery) OR (craniofacial surgery)}. The papers were analyzed and classified according to the reason for retraction or withdrawal, journal name, publication year, and author. In the PubMed and SCOPUS, 227 and 114 titles were found, respectively, from which 34 duplicate titles were removed. An additional 261 titles which did not include "retracted" or "withdrawn" were removed, leaving 46 papers and 6 mined papers were added. The 52 full texts (42 "retracted" and 10 "withdrawn") were analyzed.The most frequent reason for retraction or withdrawal was duplication (17, 32.7%) followed by the author's request (9, 17.3%), plagiarism (7, 13.5%), and lack of permission (5, 9.6%). Retraction was most common in Plast Reconstr Surg (6, 12%) followed by Aesthetic Plast Surg (4, 7.9%), Ann Plast Surg (2, 3.9%), J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2, 3.9%), and Surg Res (2, 3.9%). Most authors retracted a paper just once; however, 6 authors retracted a paper twice or more. The first retraction was found in 1991, and the number of retractions showed a tendency to increase over time. However, the duplication rate did not change over time (R = 0.178, P = 0.117).Journal reviewers, as well as production editors, should check for duplication, plagiarism, or permission-related problems.

Plagiarism and data falsification are the most common reasons for retracted publications in obstetrics and gynaecology

“…of fellow trainees in gynaecological oncology, over 70% reported non‐compliance with research practices, including IRB processes, authorship assignment, and compliant data storage . Similarly, in a study of gynaecological oncology fellowship applicants reporting publications on their curriculum vitae, approximately one‐third of the applicants had at least one publication that could not be confirmed . Although pressures do exist to be academically productive, there are regulations and rules in place that, when followed, can help researchers publish high‐quality, valid scientific work.…”

“…18 Similarly, in a study of gynaecological oncology fellowship applicants reporting publications on their curriculum vitae, approximately one-third of the applicants had at least one publication that could not be confirmed. 19 Although pressures do exist to be academically productive, there are regulations and rules in place that, when followed, can help researchers publish high-quality, valid scientific work. It is important for all clinician scientists to be aware that article retraction can have serious consequences within the medical community, for patient care, scientific advancement, and career advancement.…”

Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research

“…9 Plastic surgery is not immune to these practices either, as plagiarism, dual publication, and retraction based on falsified claims and invalid research methods have been reported. 30,31 These are also clearly unethical and undermine research integrity but are much less publicized. It begs the question whether there is a hierarchy of misconduct?…”

Decoding Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty in Plastic Surgery

“…In the postpublication phase, it is encouraging that journals rarely have to issue retractions or withdrawals of published works, which are mainly due to duplication, plagiarism, lack of permission, or at the author's request. 5…”

“…In the postpublication phase, it is encouraging that journals rarely have to issue retractions or withdrawals of published works, which are mainly due to duplication, plagiarism, lack of permission, or at the author's request. 5 Although technology has been slow to disrupt medicine other than at the periphery, it has come to the aid of journal editorial teams in the form of plagiarism and duplicate publication detection software. Regrettably this software can do little to protect against data fabrication and falsification.…”