thePlasticsPaper - April 9th

While the importance of research in plastic surgery cannot be overstated, there is a growing concern that the field has become too focused on quantity over quality. The pressure to publish as many articles as possible have led to a culture of "publish or perish," where researchers are more concerned with the number of publications on their CVs than the actual impact of their work. This has resulted in an abundance of mediocre studies being published in predatory journals, which ultimately do more harm than good to the field.

One of the biggest drivers of this trend is the flawed incentive structure in academic medicine. Researchers are often evaluated based on metrics such as the number of publications, the impact factor of the journals they publish in, and the grant funding they receive. While these metrics are intended to measure productivity and impact, they are often used as a proxy for success and are frequently misinterpreted by institutions and individuals.

Another issue is the proliferation of predatory journals, which prey on researchers' desire to publish and lack of understanding of the publishing process. These journals often have lax peer-review processes and, in some cases, will publish anything for a fee. This has led to a proliferation of low-quality studies that do not contribute to advancing the field but instead serve to inflate researchers' publication records. Not only does this undermine the integrity of the field, but it can also have serious consequences for patients if low-quality research is used to guide clinical practice.

To address these concerns, some publications have implemented innovative peer review models. For example, the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery has introduced a “registered reports” format, in which authors submit a detailed research proposal before conducting their study. Another way to promote quality research is to increase transparency and data sharing. The RSTN is doing good work on this. Having a large database can help address the issue of selective reporting, where researchers only report positive results and fail to report negative or inconclusive findings, which can bias the literature.

The future of plastic surgery research must prioritize quality over quantity to ensure that the field continues to advance and improve patient care. While the current incentive structure and the proliferation of predatory journals present significant challenges, addressing these issues is critical to the integrity and credibility of the field.

But at the end of the day, this poll speaks for itself.

Is Indocyanine green overrated for detecting necrosis? 

A study compared ICG angiography and MSRI for assessing tissue viability in breast reconstruction surgery. MSRI was more accurate than ICG angiography in predicting postoperative necrosis. MSRI may be a better option for plastic surgeons.

Read this PRS Article