- Email: [email protected]
Citation of Retracted Articles: A Call for Vigilance
CORRESPONDENCE
Citation of Retracted Articles: A Call for Vigilance To the Editor:
MISCELLANEOUS
We would like to bring the issue of retracted article citation to the attention of readers, authors, and reviewers. Retraction of published articles is a matter of deep professional embarrassment, resentment, and regret for all involved. Despite thorough peerreview and editorial scrutiny, major concerns may occasionally come to light after publication; these articles are erased from the scholarly record and therefore should not be cited [1]. Our interest was prompted by a near-miss in referencing such an article. Searching MEDLINE using the MeSH heading “retracted publication,” we identified 823 articles published from 1990 to 2008. Ten were printed in The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network journals—six in The Annals and four in The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. These articles and their retractions were located through The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network and the full text pages and portable document format (PDF) files reviewed. Citation histories were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (June 21, 2008) accessed through the Thomson ISI Web of Science portal. Five articles were retracted by the editor, four by the authors, and one by the publisher (accidentally published twice in consecutive issues, the latter copy withdrawn). All articles had a published retraction in the journal with a median interval of 8 months, range 4 to 25 months. The stated reasons included duplicate publication, procedural or data irregularities, manuscript submitted without knowledge of contributor, and concern over authenticity of signatures. Of the nine articles retracted by the editor or authors, only two were clearly labeled as such on the journals’ website. Indeed, portable document format files were available for eight of the articles, but only two were marked “retracted” across the first page. Analysis of the nine articles revealed 40 citations to date, excluding retraction notices, and in turn, these have already been cited 263 times. Thirty-one of 40 primary citations (78%) were more than 1 year after the date of retraction (allowing for publication lag), including six in the same journal. Ironically, the other publication, withdrawn by the journal through no fault of the authors, has been cited 15 times compared with just once for the earlier version of record. These findings demonstrate the inadequacy of current measures to prevent the citation of retracted articles. Unfortunately, retraction is becoming increasingly common; four of the nine articles were withdrawn during 2007. Although these represent a tiny proportion of the more than 36,000 articles published in The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network journals since 1990, citation of retracted publications represents a threat to the integrity of the scientific record and we must all recognize our responsibilities to prevent this pollution [2]. Institutions should promote a culture of responsibility, supporting authors to provide sound articles. Reviewers and readers should raise concerns with the editor to enable prompt and appropriate investigation. If substantiated, a retraction statement or expression of concern should be publicized in both print and electronic media according to guidelines [1, 3]. Journals should require prospective authors to declare that they have checked their manuscript’s reference list for retracted articles [1, 2, 4]. We believe that if this is subsequently recognized, an erratum should be published. With the increased use of electronic resources, the citation of retracted work can be minimized by appropriate labeling. There will always be mistakes and misdemeanors, but perpetuating them should be avoidable. © 2009 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Published by Elsevier Inc
Nigel E. Drury, BM(Hons), MRCS Danai M. Karamanou, MBBS, MRCS Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected]
References 1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biological publication. Updated October 2007. Available at: www.icmje.org. Accessed June 1, 2008. 2. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:609 –13. 3. United States National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retraction, duplicate publication, comment, update and patient summary policy for MEDLINE. Bethesda, MD: NLM, January 21, 2005. www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ errata.html. Accessed June 2008. 4. Garfield E. How to avoid spreading error. Scientists must search for corrections. The Scientist 1987;1:255–7. Available at: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v14p255y1991.pdf. Accessed June 2008.
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Accurately Predicts Risk of Major Surgery Including Esophageal Resection: Letter 1 To the Editor: Our work on assessment of operative risk [1–3], quoted by Forshaw and colleagues [4], demonstrated that oxygen consumption is increased after major surgery, and patients with decreased cardiopulmonary reserve have increased risk. Esophageal surgery differs from other procedures with high surgery-specific risk such as colorectal or abdomino-vascular surgery. It not only increases oxygen consumption but also interferes with the cardiopulmonary “machinery.” For this reason, our system of triage [3] mandated that all patients undergoing esophageal surgery were admitted to a high dependency environment. Our patients were not routinely ventilated; we believe the benefit of high dependency care derives from close monitoring and the continuous presence of trained medical staff, not ventilation per se. Decreased functional reserve means decreased ability to transfer oxygen to metabolising tissue. It may be expressed in terms of a reduction in anaerobic threshold (AT), maximum oxygen consumption, or oxygen consumption–work rate relationship. Measures of peak or maximum oxygen consumption have no role in preoperative assessment. The AT relates to sustainable aerobic activity and has more relevance to the postoperative state. We prefer measurement of AT because it is non-volitional, reproducible, occurs at a lower work rate, and because many other physiological parameters are defined at the AT. We congratulate Forshaw and colleagues [4] on the low mortality reported in their study. However, using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) [5] as the measure of adverse events has confused the location and cause of the complications. Esophageal surgery is distinctive in that the operative fields and the local complications are proximate to the cardiopulmonary system. As Forshaw and colleagues [4] acknowledge, primary and secondary cardiopulmonary complications are significantly different. This is neglected in the analysis. Atelectasis, or aspiration leading to pneumonia, or pleural effusion clearly involve the cardiopulmonary system, but are Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:670 – 8 • 0003-4975/09/$36.00 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.07.108
Citation of Retracted Articles: A Call for Vigilance To the Editor:
MISCELLANEOUS
We would like to bring the issue of retracted article citation to the attention of readers, authors, and reviewers. Retraction of published articles is a matter of deep professional embarrassment, resentment, and regret for all involved. Despite thorough peerreview and editorial scrutiny, major concerns may occasionally come to light after publication; these articles are erased from the scholarly record and therefore should not be cited [1]. Our interest was prompted by a near-miss in referencing such an article. Searching MEDLINE using the MeSH heading “retracted publication,” we identified 823 articles published from 1990 to 2008. Ten were printed in The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network journals—six in The Annals and four in The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. These articles and their retractions were located through The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network and the full text pages and portable document format (PDF) files reviewed. Citation histories were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded (June 21, 2008) accessed through the Thomson ISI Web of Science portal. Five articles were retracted by the editor, four by the authors, and one by the publisher (accidentally published twice in consecutive issues, the latter copy withdrawn). All articles had a published retraction in the journal with a median interval of 8 months, range 4 to 25 months. The stated reasons included duplicate publication, procedural or data irregularities, manuscript submitted without knowledge of contributor, and concern over authenticity of signatures. Of the nine articles retracted by the editor or authors, only two were clearly labeled as such on the journals’ website. Indeed, portable document format files were available for eight of the articles, but only two were marked “retracted” across the first page. Analysis of the nine articles revealed 40 citations to date, excluding retraction notices, and in turn, these have already been cited 263 times. Thirty-one of 40 primary citations (78%) were more than 1 year after the date of retraction (allowing for publication lag), including six in the same journal. Ironically, the other publication, withdrawn by the journal through no fault of the authors, has been cited 15 times compared with just once for the earlier version of record. These findings demonstrate the inadequacy of current measures to prevent the citation of retracted articles. Unfortunately, retraction is becoming increasingly common; four of the nine articles were withdrawn during 2007. Although these represent a tiny proportion of the more than 36,000 articles published in The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network journals since 1990, citation of retracted publications represents a threat to the integrity of the scientific record and we must all recognize our responsibilities to prevent this pollution [2]. Institutions should promote a culture of responsibility, supporting authors to provide sound articles. Reviewers and readers should raise concerns with the editor to enable prompt and appropriate investigation. If substantiated, a retraction statement or expression of concern should be publicized in both print and electronic media according to guidelines [1, 3]. Journals should require prospective authors to declare that they have checked their manuscript’s reference list for retracted articles [1, 2, 4]. We believe that if this is subsequently recognized, an erratum should be published. With the increased use of electronic resources, the citation of retracted work can be minimized by appropriate labeling. There will always be mistakes and misdemeanors, but perpetuating them should be avoidable. © 2009 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Published by Elsevier Inc
Nigel E. Drury, BM(Hons), MRCS Danai M. Karamanou, MBBS, MRCS Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH United Kingdom e-mail: [email protected]
References 1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biological publication. Updated October 2007. Available at: www.icmje.org. Accessed June 1, 2008. 2. Sox HC, Rennie D. Research misconduct, retraction and cleansing the medical literature: lessons from the Poehlman case. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:609 –13. 3. United States National Library of Medicine. Fact sheet: errata, retraction, duplicate publication, comment, update and patient summary policy for MEDLINE. Bethesda, MD: NLM, January 21, 2005. www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ errata.html. Accessed June 2008. 4. Garfield E. How to avoid spreading error. Scientists must search for corrections. The Scientist 1987;1:255–7. Available at: www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v14p255y1991.pdf. Accessed June 2008.
Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Accurately Predicts Risk of Major Surgery Including Esophageal Resection: Letter 1 To the Editor: Our work on assessment of operative risk [1–3], quoted by Forshaw and colleagues [4], demonstrated that oxygen consumption is increased after major surgery, and patients with decreased cardiopulmonary reserve have increased risk. Esophageal surgery differs from other procedures with high surgery-specific risk such as colorectal or abdomino-vascular surgery. It not only increases oxygen consumption but also interferes with the cardiopulmonary “machinery.” For this reason, our system of triage [3] mandated that all patients undergoing esophageal surgery were admitted to a high dependency environment. Our patients were not routinely ventilated; we believe the benefit of high dependency care derives from close monitoring and the continuous presence of trained medical staff, not ventilation per se. Decreased functional reserve means decreased ability to transfer oxygen to metabolising tissue. It may be expressed in terms of a reduction in anaerobic threshold (AT), maximum oxygen consumption, or oxygen consumption–work rate relationship. Measures of peak or maximum oxygen consumption have no role in preoperative assessment. The AT relates to sustainable aerobic activity and has more relevance to the postoperative state. We prefer measurement of AT because it is non-volitional, reproducible, occurs at a lower work rate, and because many other physiological parameters are defined at the AT. We congratulate Forshaw and colleagues [4] on the low mortality reported in their study. However, using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) [5] as the measure of adverse events has confused the location and cause of the complications. Esophageal surgery is distinctive in that the operative fields and the local complications are proximate to the cardiopulmonary system. As Forshaw and colleagues [4] acknowledge, primary and secondary cardiopulmonary complications are significantly different. This is neglected in the analysis. Atelectasis, or aspiration leading to pneumonia, or pleural effusion clearly involve the cardiopulmonary system, but are Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:670 – 8 • 0003-4975/09/$36.00 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.07.108