The Anatomy behind Eyebrow Positioning: A Clinical Guide Based on Current Anatomic Concepts.

I read the communication by Dr. de Almeida et al. on the recent publication “The Anatomy behind Eyebrow Positioning: A Clinical Guide Based on Current Anatomic Concepts”1 by me and my colleagues, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The Brazilian authors open by recounting their previous scientific achievements and claim that each of the authors was the first to have described the “omega” glabellar pattern, frontalis muscle strength assessment, and face paintings to demonstrate facial muscle dynamics. They subsequently state that our publication failed to cite their scientific contributions and to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and that we are therefore guilty of academic misconduct. In their ensuing discussion, they suggest that we are also guilty of plagiarism. Regarding the plagiarism claim, contrary to the authors’ statement that plagiarism is difficult to detect, there are multiple free and commercially available tools that identify plagiarism. In addition, it should be disclosed to the authors that not including citations is not termed “plagiarism” in the scientific world. Accusations of plagiarism by de Almeida et al. are thus not justified. Commercial disclosures were not relevant to our publication, as there was no project sponsorship, no brand-specific applicability of concepts discussed, and no commercial support provided in the manuscript writing or publication process. The subject of our article was biomechanics and the correlation of anatomic structures to facial movements that are academic and not unique to any particular commercial brand. With respect to citing peer references and recognizing others for their academic work that pertains to our article, it should be pointed out that 38 relevant references were cited. The major concern in question here—and which seems to be the major motivator of de Almeida and colleagues—seems to be that we did not cite a 2012 article by de Almeida et al.2 In their letter, the authors state, “de Almeida et al. originally described and named the uncommon ‘omega’ glabellar pattern, as well as the associated muscle activity.” Interestingly, de Almeida et al. claim credit for a concept that was originally introduced to the scientific literature in 1872 by Charles Darwin.3 Darwin described a forehead wrinkle pattern in depression and melancholia that was labeled in 1878 as omega melancholicum and by Heinrich Schuele4 as the omega sign. Moreover, in 1985, Greden et al.5 established the anatomic relationship between corrugator supercilii muscles and the omega sign using electromyography. According to U.S. law, a concept that was published before January 1, 1927, is in the public domain and does not need to be cited when authored in 2022.6 However, claiming credit for, or ownership of, a concept that has been introduced previously does represent an example of blatant academic misconduct. I agree that academic misconduct is a serious issue. Considering the above information, I feel strongly that our academic conduct is consistent with high publication standards. I encourage the authors to reconsider their claims of originality for the description of “their” concepts and especially of the omega pattern of glabellar contractions. DISCLOSURE The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this communication. The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this communication.