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.

The Peer Review System: A Journal Editor's 30-Year Perspective.

The peer review system has become the standard by which scientific articles are refereed. Unfortunately, even from its beginnings in the mid-1800s it has been fraught with difficulties. Potential reviewers are volunteers who may be inundated with requests to review yet these reviews take considerable time and effort. There is little motivation to complete a review causing significant delays in the publication process. There may be biases unintentionally built into the system between reviewers, authors, editors, and journals. Attempts to overcome these biases by various blinding schemes have been met with limited success. Finally, the recent advent of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to completely upend the system, for good or bad.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process.

BACKGROUND: Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy. METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population. RESULTS: A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies. CONCLUSIONS: Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

Comprehensive examination of the peer review process in academic medicine: Towards reaching unbiased decisions - Editorial.

•The implementation of double- or triple-blind review practices will ensure that authors with worthwhile and prominent research will have fair and equitable review regardless of their prominence in the field.•Improving the quality of our reviews and raising the standings of our publishing authors. This makes way for healthy competition and a drive to produce high quality research.•It is our responsibility to limit or eliminate bias by promoting impartiality and increasing the level of transparency between the editorial teams and authors, allowing peer review to be more inclusive, instructional, and equitable.

Proposal of a Standardized Questionnaire to Structure Clinical Peer Reviews of Mortality and Failure of Rescue in Pancreatic Surgery.

Background: Quality management tools such as clinical peer reviews facilitate root cause analysis and may, ultimately, help to reduce surgery-related morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability of a standardized questionnaire for clinical peer reviews in pancreatic surgery. Methods: All cases of in-hospital-mortality following pancreatic surgery at two high-volume centers (n = 86) were reviewed by two pancreatic surgeons. A standardized mortality review questionnaire was developed and applied to all cases. In a second step, 20 cases were randomly assigned to an online re-review that was completed by seven pancreatic surgeons. The overall consistency of the results between the peer review and online re-review was determined by Cohen's kappa (κ). The inter-rater reliability of the online re-review was assessed by Fleiss' kappa (κ). Results: The clinical peer review showed that 80% of the patient mortality was related to surgery. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) (36%) followed by post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) (22%) were the most common surgical underlying (index) complications leading to in-hospital mortality. Most of the index complications yielded in abdominal sepsis (62%); 60% of the cases exhibited potential of improvement, especially through timely diagnosis and therapy (42%). There was a moderate to substantial strength of agreement between the peer review and the online re-review in regard to the category of death (surgical vs. non-surgical; κ = 0.886), type of surgical index complication (κ = 0.714) as well as surgical and non-surgical index complications (κ = 0.492 and κ = 0.793). Fleiss' kappa showed a moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement of the online re-review in terms of category of death (κ = 0.724), category of common surgical index complications (κ = 0.455) and surgical index complication (κ = 0.424). Conclusion: The proposed questionnaire to structure clinical peer reviews is a reliable tool for root cause analyses of in-hospital mortality and may help to identify specific options to improve outcomes in pancreatic surgery. However, the reliability of the peer feedback decreases with an increasing specificity of the review questions.

Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.

BACKGROUND: Physician scientists who are also Editorial Board members or Associate Editors may prefer publishing in their own journal and therefore create an environment for conflicts of interest to arise. OBJECTIVES: To assess the relationship between the number of peer-reviewed publications in surgical journals in which authors serve as Editorial Board Members and Associate Editors and their total number of annual publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study utilizing PubMed was performed regarding the total annual number of peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and the number published in their respective affiliated journals from 2016 to 2019. Significance defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: 80 Associate Editors and 721 Editorial Board Members (n = 801 total) were analyzed from 10 surgical journals. The mean number of total annual peer-reviewed publications varied from 5.19 to 17.18. The mean number of annual peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals varied from 0.06 to 2.53. Multiple significant associations were discovered between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications and number of peer-reviewed publications in affiliated journals for all authors/surgical journals evaluated, except for the International Journal of Surgery (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found significant associations between the total number of annual peer-reviewed publications by Editorial Board Members/Associate Editors and number of annual peer-reviewed publications by their affiliated surgical journals. The implementation and enforcement of a standardized double-blind review process and mandatory reporting of any potential conflicts of interest can reduce possible bias and promote a fair and high-quality peer-review process.

The Editing Process-From the Personal to the Professional.

Along with my colleagues, I presented a number of sessions at the 2019 Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Congress on publishing and how it contributes to career advancement and professional fulfillment. Ellen Carr, RN, MSN, AOCN®, editor of the Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, Leslie McGee, MA, senior editorial manager at ONS, and I talked about various aspects of the publishing process and answered questions from enthusiastic audience members, many of whom had not published before. As we described the process of writing a manuscript, following the instructions for authors, and eventually finding a home for the work, I thought about the important role that editing plays.

Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals.

BACKGROUND: Predatory journals exist in nursing and lack the safeguards of traditional publishing practices. PURPOSE: To examine the quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. METHOD: Randomly selected articles (n = 358) were reviewed for structural content and eight quality indicators. FINDINGS: Two-thirds (67.4%) of the articles were published between 2014 and 2016, demonstrating the acceleration of publications in predatory nursing journals. The majority (75.9%) of the articles were research reports. Most followed the IMRAD presentation of a research report but contained errors, or the study was not pertinent to the nursing discipline. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing research published in predatory journals may appear legitimate by conforming to an expected structure. However, a lack of quality is apparent, representing inadequate peer review and editorial processes. Poor quality research erodes the scholarly nursing literature.

Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author's perspective.

To gain insight into the duration and quality of the scientific peer review process, we analyzed data from 3500 review experiences submitted by authors to the SciRev.sc website. Aspects studied are duration of the first review round, total review duration, immediate rejection time, the number, quality, and difficulty of referee reports, the time it takes authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript, and overall quality of the experience. We find clear differences in these aspects between scientific fields, with Medicine, Public health, and Natural sciences showing the shortest durations and Mathematics and Computer sciences, Social sciences, Economics and Business, and Humanities the longest. One-third of journals take more than 2 weeks for an immediate (desk) rejection and one sixth even more than 4 weeks. This suggests that besides the time reviewers take, inefficient editorial processes also play an important role. As might be expected, shorter peer review processes and those of accepted papers are rated more positively by authors. More surprising is that peer review processes in the fields linked to long processes are rated highest and those in the fields linked to short processes lowest. Hence authors' satisfaction is apparently influenced by their expectations regarding what is common in their field. Qualitative information provided by the authors indicates that editors can enhance author satisfaction by taking an independent position vis-à-vis reviewers and by communicating well with authors.

'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the peer review process for competitive funding is usually conducted by a peer review group in conjunction with prior assessment from external assessors. This process is quite mysterious to those outside it. The purpose of this research was to throw light on grant review panels (sometimes called the 'black box') through an examination of the impact of panel procedures, panel composition and panel dynamics on the decision-making in the grant review process. A further purpose was to compare experience of a simplified review process with more conventional processes used in assessing grant proposals in Australia. METHODS: This project was one aspect of a larger study into the costs and benefits of a simplified peer review process. The Queensland University of Technology (QUT)-simplified process was compared with the National Health and Medical Research Council's (NHMRC) more complex process. Grant review panellists involved in both processes were interviewed about their experience of the decision-making process that assesses the excellence of an application. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Each transcription was de-identified and returned to the respondent for review. Final transcripts were read repeatedly and coded, and similar codes were amalgamated into categories that were used to build themes. Final themes were shared with the research team for feedback. RESULTS: Two major themes arose from the research: (1) assessing grant proposals and (2) factors influencing the fairness, integrity and objectivity of review. Issues such as the quality of writing in a grant proposal, comparison of the two review methods, the purpose and use of the rebuttal, assessing the financial value of funded projects, the importance of the experience of the panel membership and the role of track record and the impact of group dynamics on the review process were all discussed. The research also examined the influence of research culture on decision-making in grant review panels. One of the aims of this study was to compare a simplified review process with more conventional processes. Generally, participants were supportive of the simplified process. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency in the grant review process will result in better appreciation of the outcome. Despite the provision of clear guidelines for peer review, reviewing processes are likely to be subjective to the extent that different reviewers apply different rules. The peer review process will come under more scrutiny as funding for research becomes even more competitive. There is justification for further research on the process, especially of a kind that taps more deeply into the 'black box' of peer review.

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research. We aimed to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and WHO ICTRP databases, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications. RESULTS: We selected 22 reports of randomized controlled trials, for 25 comparisons evaluating training interventions (n = 5), the addition of a statistical peer reviewer (n = 2), use of a checklist (n = 2), open peer review (i.e., peer reviewers informed that their identity would be revealed; n = 7), blinded peer review (i.e., peer reviewers blinded to author names and affiliation; n = 6) and other interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process (n = 3). Results from only seven RCTs were published since 2004. As compared with the standard peer review process, training did not improve the quality of the peer review report and use of a checklist did not improve the quality of the final manuscript. Adding a statistical peer review improved the quality of the final manuscript (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.58; 95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.98). Open peer review improved the quality of the peer review report (SMD, 0.14; 95 % CI, 0.05 to 0.24), did not affect the time peer reviewers spent on the peer review (mean difference, 0.18; 95 % CI, -0.06 to 0.43), and decreased the rate of rejection (odds ratio, 0.56; 95 % CI, 0.33 to 0.94). Blinded peer review did not affect the quality of the peer review report or rejection rate. Interventions to increase the speed of the peer review process were too heterogeneous to allow for pooling the results. CONCLUSION: Despite the essential role of peer review, only a few interventions have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. Evidence-based peer review needs to be developed in biomedical journals.

Polaridad de los comentarios y consistencia interna en los informes de arbitraje de artículos de investigación / Polarity of comments and internal consistency in peer review reports on scientific research articles / Polaridade dos comentários e consistência interna nos informes de arbitragem de artigos de pesquisa

El informe de arbitraje en los procesos de revisión por pares de artículos de investigación es un género clave para explicar cómo se construye colectivamente el conocimiento científico. En estos informes los evaluadores emiten, junto con una serie de comentarios, una recomendación de publicación. El análisis de la calidad del proceso de evaluación por pares se ha realizado a partir de indicadores, como las tasas de rechazo o el grado de acuerdo entre los evaluadores. Sin embargo, aún queda pendiente una evaluación cualitativa del proceso. El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir la proporción, según su polaridad (positiva, negativa y neutra), de los comentarios de 56 informes de evaluación de la Revista Onomázein y determinar si esa proporción era consistente con la recomendación de los evaluadores (Aceptado, Aceptado con enmiendas mayores o menores, y Rechazado). Del análisis de 1.472 comentarios se determinó que, independientemente de la decisión, la mayor proporción corresponde a comentarios negativos. Asimismo, podemos afirmar que los procesos analizados presentan un alto grado de consistencia. Mientras más favorable es la recomendación de los árbitros mayor es la proporción de comentarios positivos emitidos y, correspondientemente, menor es la proporción de comentarios negativos.

Peer review reports on scientific articles means a key genre to explain how scientific knowledge is collectively constructed. In these reports, reviewers write a recommendation for publication along with a series of comments. The quality analysis of the peer review process has been commonly conducted based on indicators, such as rejection rates and the agreement level among evaluators. However, a more qualitative investigation on the process still remains outstanding. This work aims at describing the polarity (positive, negative and neutral) of comments corresponding to 56 peer review reports belonging to the journal Onomázein and determining whether this proportion is consistent with the reviewers recommendation, i.e. Accepted, Accepted with major revisions, Accepted with minor revisions and Rejected). After the analysis of 1.472 comments, it was possible to determine that the highest proportion of comments is negative, independent of the decision. The analyzed processes also showed a high level of consistency. The more favorable the recommendation, the higher the proportion of positive comments, and, consequently, the less the proportion of negative comments.

O informe de arbitragem nos processos de revisão por pares de artigos de pesquisa é um gênero chave para explicar como se constrói coletivamente o conhecimento científico. Nestes informes os avaliadores emitem, junto com uma série de comentários, uma recomendação de publicação. A análise da qualidade do processo de avaliação por pares foi realizada a partir de indicadores, como as taxas de recusa ou o grau de acordo entre os avaliadores. No entanto, ainda resta pendente uma avaliação qualitativa do processo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi descrever a proporção, segundo a sua polaridade (positiva, negativa e neutra), dos comentários de 56 informes de avaliação da Revista Onomázein e determinar se essa proporção era consistente com a recomendação dos avaliadores (Aceito, Aceito com emendas maiores ou menores, e Recusado). Da análise de 1.472 comentários se determinou que, independentemente da decisão, a maior proporção corresponde a comentários negativos. Assim mesmo, podemos afirmar que os processos analisados apresentam um alto grau de consistência. Quanto mais favorável for a recomendação dos árbitros maior será a proporção de comentários positivos emitidos e, correspondentemente, menor é a proporção de comentários negativos.

¿DISENSO ENTRE PARES REVISORES? NO SE PREOCUPE, QUE A FIN DE CUENTAS EL EDITOR SIEMPRE TIENE LA ÚLTIMA PALABRA / DISSENT BETWEEN PEER REVIEWERS? DON'T WORRY, ULTIMATELY THE EDITOR HAS THE LAST WORD

Todos hemos sometido algún artículo científico a revisión con la idea de que sea publicado en cierta revista. Frecuentemente, los autores experimentan muchas barreras para alcanzar el éxito (lograr la publicación) cuando someten artículos a revisión. Estas barreras dependen de la escritura del artículo en sí mismo, de los sesgos de los pares revisores, de la forma en que se escribe la carta de presentación (cover letter), y de la manera en la cual se implementa una estrategia para abordar y responder a las observaciones (erradas o no) que emiten los pares revisores y el editor de la revista. El propósito de este artículo vivencial es el de brindar consejos útiles a autores que investigan en el área de la ingeniería clínica, sobre cómo publicar artículos que aborden temas en el área de la salud en revistas de alto impacto en el área del operations research & management sciences.

All of us have at some point submitted a scientific paper for review with the idea of being published in a given journal. Often, the authors experience many barriers to success (achieving publication) when they submit articles for publication. These barriers depend on the quality of the writing itself, on the biases of the peer reviewers, the way you write your cover letter, and the way in which you address and respond to the observations (erroneous or not) emitted by peer reviewers and the editor of the journal. The purpose of this paper is to provide useful pieces of advice on how to publish articles that tackle issues in the health area in high impact journals in the area of Operations Research & Management Sciences.

Reviewing an Original Research Manuscript for the International Journal of Exercise Science: A Guide for Students and Professionals.

Considerations for the review process of manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Exercise Science are presented. Initial steps to evaluation include reading the abstract to determine your ability as a reviewer, becoming familiar with the journal requirements, and formulating an initial impression of the manuscript. At this point an assessment is made to determine how the reviewer should treat the manuscript. If it is determined that the manuscript is acceptable with minor revisions, or may be acceptable with major changes, a full review should be performed. A full review of the manuscript requires a thorough examination of the major headings including the Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The written review is composed of two parts, a section with the decision that is composed of comments only for the editor, and a section that provides feedback to the authors. Specific comments to the authors should include an honest critique that aids in improving the manuscript.