By and large, physicians and surgeons trust what they read, even if they take authors’ conclusions with a pinch of salt. There is a world of difference between being cautious about the implications of what you read and being defrauded by dishonest researchers. Fraud and scientific research are incompatible bedfellows and yet are an unhappy part of our research existence. All subspecialties are to blame and orthopaedics is no exception

In 2006, approximately 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles were published, aided by a large rise in the number of available scientific journals from 16 000 in 2001 to 23 750 by 2006. Is this evidence of an explosion in scientific knowledge or just the accumulation of wasteful publications and junk science? Data show that only 45% of the articles published in the 4500 top scientific journals are cited within the first five years of publication, a figure that is dropping steadily. Only 42% receive more than one citation. For better or for worse, “Publish or Perish” appears here to stay as the number of published papers becomes the basis for selection to academic positions, for tenure and promotions, a criterion for the awarding of grants and also the source of funding for salaries. The high pressure to publish has, however, ushered in an era where scientists are increasingly conducting and publishing data from research performed with ‘questionable research practices’ or even committing outright fraud. The few cases which are reported will in fact be the tip of an iceberg and the scientific community needs to be vigilant against this corruption of science

Objectives. Despite the fact that research fraud and misconduct are under scrutiny in the field of orthopaedic research, little systematic work has been done to uncover and characterise the underlying reasons for academic retractions in this field. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of retractions and identify the reasons for retracted publications in the orthopaedic literature. Methods. Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1995 to current) using MeSH keyword headings and the ‘retracted’ filter. We also searched an independent website that reports and archives retracted scientific publications (. www.retractionwatch.com. ). Two reviewers independently extracted data including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and country of origin. Results. One hundred and ten retracted studies were included for data extraction. The retracted studies were published in journals with impact factors ranging from 0.000 (discontinued journals) to 13.262. In the 20-year search window, only 25 papers were retracted in the first ten years, with the remaining 85 papers retracted in the most recent decade. The most common reasons for retraction were fraudulent data (29), plagiarism (25) and duplicate publication (20). Retracted articles have been cited up to 165 times (median 6; interquartile range 2 to 19). Conclusion. The rate of retractions in the orthopaedic literature is increasing, with the majority of retractions attributed to academic misconduct and fraud. Orthopaedic retractions originate from numerous journals and countries, indicating that misconduct issues are widespread. The results of this study highlight the need to address academic integrity when training the next generation of orthopaedic investigators. Cite this article: J. Yan, A. MacDonald, L-P. Baisi, N. Evaniew, M. Bhandari, M. Ghert. Retractions in orthopaedic research: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:263–268. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.56.BJR-2016-0047

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454.

Aims

Preprint servers allow authors to publish full-text manuscripts or interim findings prior to undergoing peer review. Several preprint servers have extended their services to biological sciences, clinical research, and medicine. The purpose of this study was to systematically identify and analyze all articles related to Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery published in five medical preprint servers, and to investigate the factors that influence the subsequent rate of publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Research is the quest for information. It is not an excuse for attending meetings in exotic places, nor is it an escape from clinical work that has become uninteresting. The early orthopaedic joumals contained reports of patients who have been treated by individual surgeons in specific, often novel, ways. There was little scientific structure, but nevertheless these papers were valuable as they disseminated knowledge to other Surgeons and also stimulated enquiry. Orthopaedic research has developed dramatically over the last two or three decades. Patient related research has been advanced as a result of the availability of new techniques for example electron microscopy, DNA sequencing and the Genome, together with the discovery of the fine details of the cytokine control of cellular processes. This has gone hand in hand with the development of surgical sophistication allowing more adventurous interventions. Joint replacement and internal fixation have led to close associations between orthopaedic surgeons and scientists from other disciplines, notably engineers and material scientists. This multi-disciplinary involvement is typical of orthopaedic surgeons and results in each discipline benefiting from the specialist knowledge of the others. The natural tendeney for orthopaedic surgeons to be interested in mechanical items is clear from a study of the distribution of interesting cars in the hospital car park!. The efficacy of different treatment methods should be challenged and this has resulted in the need for careful audit and epidemiological review. In some instances this has resulted in the conclusion that often used treatments are not effective. The assiduous application of the Cochrane principles is often very revealing, not least in that it indicates the lack of properly conducted orthopaedic trials. Academic orthopaedics is in danger. In many countries the speciality is under pressure, normally as a result of economic measures that restrict the avallability of salarles and grants. In spite of these restrictions, it is surprising that there is a steady supply of excellent papers. How much better it could be with more funding. The purpose of publícation is to share information. It should be the aim of every research worker to make a contribution to the understanding of the subject and to share his findings with his colleagues. Curiously many researchers feeI that their commitment to their project is complete as soon as they finish the trial and have the results. The preparafion of their work for dissemination through publication is often a very weak link and in some instances is absent. This is a dangerous tendency as their information may not be broadcast, wasting the scientific endeavour and endangering the status of the fundíng organisation, whose charitable status often depends on sharing the fruitg of research. The incentive to publish is very variable. In some institutions the very existenee of a research department depends on a ‘paper score’ which is normally calculated from the product of the number of papers and the impact factor of the j ournal in which they are published. The calculation used to determine the impact factor of ajournal does not favour orthopaedic journals, as most orthopaedic papers are not quoted prolifically within the first year of publication. In contrast orthopaedic papers tend to have a much longer and more valuable lifetime and to some this is the more important and relevant feature. Unfortunately, the long-term value of the papers is not part of the calculation of impact factor. In order to achieve a high impact factor the publication must be in a rapidly changing field and contain at least a tiny element of special originality, which leads to it being quoted by most of the workers in that field. In the publishing world there is an ongoing discussion conceming an index that is more relevant than the impact factor. For some, the competition for publication is so intense that there is ‘salami slicing’. Salami slicing is a process of publishing very small morsels of information in short papers instead of producing the complete study. It is done intentionally to increase the number of papers published and is frowned upon by scientific editors. Even worse there are cases of plagiarism and fraud, sadly occurring more commonly in surgical publication, than in other disciplines. It may be time to ask fundamental questions about the need for research, articularly the need for every doctor in training to improve or embellish his or her Curriculum Vitae by decorating it with published works. There ís a tendeney for the more wealthy and better respected grant awarding bodies to fund successful rescarch teams, rather than to risk their limited resources on a spectacular project from an unknown team. Funding is avallable from commercial sources. The role of this type of rescarch may require special assessment. There are issues of intellectual property rights and instances of commercial organisations delaymg or preventing publication if the findings of the study are not favourable. Many cynical readers give no weight to papers that are sponsored by commercial sources. It is essential that rescarch in orthopaedics continues and that every possible step is taken in order to facilitate high quality research. There may be strength in numbers and it could be that the newly revitalised European Orthopaedic Research Society could help in supporting the endeavours of rescarch workers, particularly when it comes to European funding

Introduction

Studies have addressed the issue of increasing prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal (MSK) pain among different occupations. However, contributing factors to MSK pain have not been fully investigated among orthopaedic surgeons. Thus, this study aimed to approximate the prevalence and predictors of MSK pain among Saudi orthopaedic surgeons working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.