From the abstract:
Background: The practice of neurosurgery on Saturn is almost identical to the one practiced on Earth. Because the art of practice of Medicine was transferred by homo sapiens sapiens “exearthed” 30 years ago from Earth to Saturn.
Methods: In this paper, we present three neurosurgical cases and provided management of them on Saturn.
Results: In two cases, the patients underwent surgery; in one case, the surgical indication was not established.
Conclusion: These cases give us the means of reflection to improve the practice of Neurosurgery.
——
Could the authors and the journal explain the rationale behind the publication of this 'case study'?
This paper possesses a symbolic nature. In this analysis, we explore three theoretical cases, clearly inspired by genuine instances, to highlight the various difficulties that can impact the outcomes of surgical interventions and the decision-making processes surrounding surgical or therapeutic options in Neurosurgery.
In the first scenario, we illustrate that the established routines, psychological factors, and the reputation of a neurosurgeon can significantly impact surgical decisions, primarily driven by the apprehension of unfavorable outcomes. Additionally, the interpersonal dynamics and unspoken norms may inhibit other surgeons from voicing dissent against this renowned physician. Consequently, the conduct of this surgeon raises concerns of medical malpractice or, at the very least, presents an ethical dilemma.
In the second scenario, we highlight a decision made by a young neurosurgeon that is heavily influenced by emotional factors, leading to a premature choice to proceed with surgery. This decision appears to stem from an eagerness to operate, disregarding the genuine needs of the patient, particularly given the surgeon's lack of experience in this specialized area. So the conduct of this surgeon raises concerns of medical malpractice.
In the third scenario, we discuss how personal issues, such as marital disputes, can adversely affect the quality of surgical procedures. Such conflicts had led the surgeon to expedite the operation, foregoing standard practices like intraoperative X-rays that are typically employed to ensure the proper placement of surgical materials. So the conduct of this surgeon raises concerns of medical malpractice.
We believe that science is not restricted to the study of molecules, statistical figures, false negatives, false positives, clinical trials, biological aspects, or specific p-values such as 0.003, as well as percentages, meta-analyses, or observations made under a microscope. It also encompasses other scientific domains, particularly the human sciences, which include psychology and ethics. This is especially significant when considering the challenges faced by clinicians, particularly in demanding specialties like neurosurgery, where the neurosurgeon must shoulder considerable responsibility and act as a surgeon, clinician, psychologist, and ethicist. This symbolic document provides an examination of medical malpractice within the field of neurosurgery, utilizing fictional scenarios that draw inspiration from actual cases frequently encountered in this specialty.
Sincerely yours
Dr Keyvan MOSTOFI Dr Morad PEYRAVI
Dear Sir/ Madam In reference to our earlier communication, and considering the title of this paper, it is clear that the document focuses on fictitious and hypothetical situations. This analysis aims to envision the difficulties a neurosurgeon might encounter in their professional practice under particular circumstances. Although similar scenarios may occur in reality, the examples provided in this paper are entirely hypothetical. Dr Keyvan MOSTOFI Dr Morad PEYRAVI
My guess is that this spoof was primarily designed to expose poor peer review and editorial standards. It took the journal eight days to accept! Publishing charge $1,945!
But it also shows that neurosurgeons, writing hypothetically about Saturn, can tell home truths that would cause trouble if published in the normal way.
Worth reading the whole article. I enjoyed it.
Jim Thornton. Thanks to Nick Brown for drawing it to my attention.
I appreciate your feedback. While you may perceive this text as a parody, I maintain that these instances should be regarded as 'clinical cases' in a more nuanced context, rather than in the conventional or 'configured' interpretation of the term. I am pleased that you have grasped the underlying message, as these cases are indeed inspired by actual events. Initially, I intended to submit this article to a journal focused on ethics; however, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the editorial board, of which I have no prior acquaintance, demonstrated the insight to comprehend the essence of this paper. Furthermore, I value your discernment and the thoroughness with which you approached the text before forming your opinion, especially considering that many within the 'scientific community!' were satisfied with merely the title. We remain entirely receptive to any constructive criticism regarding this article. Another point I would like to clarify is that while the journal is open access, I have not been asked for any payment to date. Sincerely yours Keyvan MOSTOFI
I now understand that this article is a parody, an allegory, or in some other way not to be taken at face value.
That's fine, but I think there are a few conventions that should be observed when publishing such pieces.
First, I would suggest they that be tested on a few unsuspecting readers, perhaps via some kind of blinded mechanism, to ensure that at least a certain percentage (I would suggest 50% as a minimum) of scientists realise that the piece is not in fact intended to be taken seriously by its authors. Satire is rare in scientific publishing, and readers are generally not expecting to have to spot such pieces; also, sadly, ostensibly serious articles that express ideas almost as bonkers that of neurosurgery taking place on another planet do appear in the literature with depressing regularity. (There are, of course, certain exceptions to the "no-satire" rule, such as the BMJ Christmas issue, which everyone knows will contain joke pieces; my personal favourite is the immortal "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials".
Second, as Alan Sokal did with "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", it is a good idea to reveal the hoax (etc) immediately on publication.
With that said, I will now send "Neurosurgery on Saturn" to my Kindle, as I imagine that, with my lower jaw back in place, it may be a very good read.
Dear Sir
Thank you for your insightful feedback
Attach files by dragging & dropping, selecting them, or pasting from the clipboard. Uploading your files… We don’t support that file type. with a PNG, GIF, or JPG. Yowza, that’s a big file. with a file smaller than 1MB. This file is empty. with a file that’s not empty. Something went really wrong, and we can’t process that file.
Comment must be at least 15 characters.