Authorship correction updates 2025 loggerhead turtle embryo paper
Bottom line
Veterinary Sciences has published a correction to the 2025 paper “Pathology of Free-Living Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Embryos on the Island of Linosa (Italy),” adding Andrea Capobianco Dondona to the author list after determining he had been inadvertently omitted. According to the correction, the paper drew on field activities in Linosa in 2008, and Capobianco Dondona, then the veterinarian responsible for the local Sea Turtle Rescue Centre, helped conceive and plan the post-mortem sampling, contributed to the sampling and preservation design, coordinated field work, and organized shipment of samples to the University of Turin. The journal said the scientific content of the article is unchanged. (mdpi.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less about a change in the pathology findings and more about research integrity, authorship credit, and traceability in wildlife and conservation medicine. The original paper examined 43 unhatched loggerhead turtle eggs from Linosa and linked embryo mortality to lesions including renal mineralization and hepatic changes, so the correction preserves the study’s findings while clarifying who was responsible for key field collection and sample-handling steps that underpin interpretation of those results. (mdpi.com)
What to watch: Watch for whether the corrected record changes how the paper is cited in future sea turtle pathology and conservation research, especially around field provenance and author contribution transparency. (mdpi.com)
Key facts
- Journal
- Veterinary Sciences
- Article
- “Pathology of Free-Living Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Embryos on the Island of Linosa (Italy)”
- Correction
- Andrea Capobianco Dondona was added to the author list
- Reason for correction
- He was inadvertently omitted from the original publication
- Study setting
- Linosa, Italy
- Field activities
- Conducted in 2008
- Study sample
- 43 unhatched loggerhead turtle eggs from five monitored nests
- Journal statement
- The scientific content of the article is unchanged
A new correction in Veterinary Sciences updates the authorship of the 2025 paper “Pathology of Free-Living Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Embryos on the Island of Linosa (Italy),” adding Andrea Capobianco Dondona to the byline. The journal says he was inadvertently omitted from the original publication, and that the scientific content of the paper remains unchanged. (mdpi.com)
The correction adds important context to how the study came together. According to the notice, the article was based on field activities carried out in Linosa in 2008, when Capobianco Dondona was the veterinarian responsible for the local Sea Turtle Rescue Centre. The correction says he conceived and planned the sampling of post-mortem material, helped design the sampling and preservation methodology, coordinated the field activity, and organized collection and shipment of samples to the University of Turin for analysis. It also states that the manuscript was prepared and submitted about 17 years later, without the original field team being contacted, meaning he did not have the chance to review the manuscript, verify the author list, or approve the final version before publication. (mdpi.com)
That timeline matters because the original article was a pathology-focused investigation of 43 unhatched loggerhead sea turtle eggs collected from five monitored nests on Pozzolana di Ponente beach on Linosa Island. The study described gross, histologic, and ultrastructural examinations of embryos and positioned the work within the conservation importance of Linosa, one of Italy’s only consistent loggerhead nesting sites. In other words, the paper depended heavily on historical field collection, specimen preservation, and chain-of-custody decisions made long before the manuscript appeared in print. (mdpi.com)
The publisher’s policies help explain why this was handled as a formal correction rather than a quiet metadata update. MDPI’s ethics guidance says post-publication authorship changes require evaluation and publication of a correction, and its update reference guide classifies the addition or removal of an author from the authorship list as a major correction. (mdpi.com)
I didn’t find outside expert reaction specific to this correction, which isn’t unusual for a narrow authorship update in a specialty journal. Still, the issue fits a broader publishing concern around proper credit for contributors in pathology and multidisciplinary research. A commentary in Veterinary Pathology has argued that excluding expert contributors from authorship can weaken rigor and reproducibility, particularly when specialized interpretation or sample stewardship is central to the work. That’s not a judgment on this paper’s findings, but it does underscore why authorship corrections can matter beyond optics. (journals.sagepub.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, especially those working in wildlife, pathology, rehabilitation, or conservation medicine, the correction is a reminder that authorship is also a record of responsibility. In studies built on archived samples or long-delayed publication, the people who designed collection protocols, managed specimen preservation, and oversaw field logistics may be essential to understanding data quality and limitations. Here, the journal explicitly says the science did not change, but the provenance of that science is now clearer. (mdpi.com)
There’s also a practical lesson for veterinary researchers. Long-interval projects, retrospective analyses, and collaborations that span institutions or rescue centers can create authorship blind spots if teams don’t document contributions early and revisit them before submission. MDPI’s policies, like those used by many publishers, tie authorship to defined contributions and require formal correction when the published record is wrong. (mdpi.com)
What to watch: The next step is likely limited to indexing and citation databases updating the corrected author record, but the bigger signal is cultural: journals and research teams may face more scrutiny over delayed manuscripts, contributor verification, and authorship sign-off in collaborative veterinary and conservation research. (mdpi.com)