Current trends in retraction of plastic surgery and reconstruction research.

BACKGROUND: Various studies regarding retractions of publications have determined the rate of retraction has increased in recent years. Although this trend may apply to any field, there is a paucity of literature exploring the publication of erroneous studies within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aims to identify trends in frequency and reasons for retraction of plastic and reconstructive surgery studies, with analysis of subspecialty and journals. METHODS: A database search was conducted for retracted papers within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The initial search yielded 2347 results, which were analyzed by two independent reviewers. 77 studies were jointly identified for data collection. RESULTS: The most common reasons for retractions were duplication (n = 20, 25.9 %), request of author (n = 15, 19.5 %), plagiarism (n = 9, 11.6 %), error (n = 9, 11.6 %), fraud (n = 2, 2.6 %), and conflict of interest (n = 1, 1.3 %). 15 were basic science studies (19.4 %), 58 were clinical science studies (75.3 %), and 4 were not categorized (5.2 %). Subspecialties of retracted papers were maxillofacial (n = 29, 37.7 %), reconstructive (n = 17, 22.0 %), wound healing (n = 8, 10.4 %), burn (n = 6, 7.8 %), esthetics (n = 5, 6.5 %), breast (n = 3, 3.9 %), and trauma (n = 1, 1.3 %). Mean impact factor was 2.9 and average time from publication to retraction was 32 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of retracted plastic surgery studies revealed a recent rise in frequency of retractions, spanning a wide spectrum of journals and subspecialties.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors. METHODS: We performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness. RESULTS: Of 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12-511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not. CONCLUSIONS: Despite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern.

On occasion, following the publication of a paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes. When editors-in-chief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alternative (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.

Exotic species dominate marinas between the two most populated regions in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean.

Human occupation of coastal areas promotes the establishment of non-native species but information on bioinvasions is usually biased toward the Northern Hemisphere. We assessed non-native species' importance in sessile communities at six marinas along the most urbanized area of the Southwestern Atlantic coastline. We found 67 species, of which 19 are exotic. The most frequent species was the exotic polychaete Branchiomma luctuosum, while the most abundant was the exotic bryozoan Schizoporella errata that monopolized the substrata in three marinas. Along with S. errata, the exotic polychaete Hydroides elegans and ascidian Styela plicata dominated space in the three remaining marinas, while native species were in general rare. We show that communities associated with artificial substrata along this Brazilian urbanized area are dominated by exotic species and that using abundance data along with species identity can improve our understanding of the importance of exotic species for the dynamics of biological communities.

Correction: Vol. 23, No. 10.

[This corrects the article on p. 1690 in vol. 23, PMID: 28930024.].

Correction: Vol. 23, Supplement.

[This corrects the article on p. S174 in vol. 23, PMID: 29155654.].

Correction: Vol. 21, No. 8.

[This corrects the article on p. 1293 in vol. 21, PMID: 26197993.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 1.

[This corrects the article on p. 22 in vol. 24, PMID: 29260677.].

Correction: Vol. 23, Supplement.

[This corrects the article on p. S85 in vol. 23, PMID: 29155675.].

Correction: Vol. 23, No. 12.

[This corrects the article on p. 2078 in vol. 23, PMID: 29148370.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 2.

[This corrects the article on p. 275 in vol. 24, PMID: 29350141.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 2.

[This corrects the article on p. 374 in vol. 24, PMID: 29350169.].

Correction: Vol. 23, No. 12.

[This corrects the article on p. 2081 in vol. 23, PMID: 29148368.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 2.

[This corrects the article on p. 385 in vol. 24, PMID: 29350167.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 9.

[This corrects the article on p. 700 in vol. 24, PMID: 29553324.].

Correction: Vol. 24, No. 8.

[This corrects the article on p. 1548 in vol. 24, PMID: 30016241.].

Correction: Vol. 23, No. 9.

[This corrects the article on p. 1462 in vol. 23, PMID: 28643628.].

Correction: Vol. 23, No. 9.

[This corrects the article on p. 1531 in vol. 23, PMID: 28820131.].