The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery is a peer-reviewed medical journal that was established in 1965. It covers the fields of pulmonary diseases and surgery. It is the official journal of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association.

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
DisciplinePulmonary disease, surgery
LanguageEnglish
Edited byL. Henry Edmunds
Publication details
History1965-present
Publisher
FrequencyMonthly
3.919 (2018)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4Ann. Thorac. Surg.
Indexing
ISSN0003-4975 (print)
1552-6259 (web)
OCLC no.1481414
Links

Article retraction practice

In 2004, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery published a study comparing two heart drugs. In January 2011, the journal retracted the study. The journal's editor-in-chief, L. Henry Edmunds, was contacted by Retraction Watch to get details about the cause of the retraction. Edmunds replied that journalists and bloggers need not discuss article retraction and that it was sufficient for the public to know that the article had been retracted. Edmunds went on to say that the reasons why a journal might retract an article are personal in the same way that the reasons for a marital divorce are.[1]

Current editorial board

Editor
  • G. Alexander Patterson, MD, St. Louis, Missouri

Past editors
  • L. Henry Edmunds Jr, MD, 2000-2015
  • Thomas B. Ferguson MD, 1984-2000
  • Herbert Sloan MD, 1969-1984
  • John D. Steele MD, 1964-1969

[2]

gollark: Why I didn't write several of the entries:#1: looks ugly#2: I am physically incapable of typing bad words#3: bad identifier names, 🐝 it#4: I can imitate myself better than that#5: don't know what `calloc` does#6: includes tests and use of vaguely FP-like constructs, and I do not do testing#7: global variables are wrong#9: not heavy enough for osmarks internet radio™#10: also looks ugly, reminds me of accursed heavpoot code#11: fixed-sized array is quite <:icosidodecahedron:726025762590949426>al#12: object orientation, kind of simple
gollark: Unless you were metahyperbluffoiding.
gollark: True, actually.
gollark: You would not, due to lyric bad.
gollark: I said exactly, and also it only has to be a multiple of 50.

References
  1. Ben Goldacre (15 January 2011). "Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 January 2011.
  2. http://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/edboard

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.