Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective.

The recent explosion in the number of predatory journals has led to the appearance of questionable websites providing fake or spurious impact factors, which are analyzed and discussed here. We believe that academic associations, universities, and research funding bodies must take action to stop these questionable practices.

Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research.

This article introduces predatory publishers in the context of biomedical sciences research. It describes the characteristics of predatory publishers, including spamming and using fake metrics, and it describes the problems they cause for science and universities. Predatory journals often fail to properly manage peer review, allowing pseudo-science to be published dressed up as authentic science. Academic evaluation is also affected, as some researchers take advantage of the quick, easy, and cheap publishing predatory journals provide. By understanding how predatory publishers operate, researchers can avoid becoming victimized by them.

Efficacy and Safety of High-Dose Subcutaneous Unfractionated Heparin Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Obese Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients experience a higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) than their nonobese counterparts, which may warrant a more aggressive approach to thromboprophylaxis in this population. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare rates of nosocomial VTE in obese patients treated with high-dose versus conventional-dose subcutaneous unfractionated heparin sodium (UFH) for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, cohort study was conducted to evaluate obese, adult, hospitalized patients admitted between April 2011 and April 2014 who received heparin 5,000 or 7,500 units subcutaneously every 8 hours for thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome assessed the rate of nosocomial VTE in obese patients treated with high-dose heparin (7,500 units subcutaneously q 8 h) versus conventional-dose heparin (5,000 units subcutaneously q 8 h). Additionally, a secondary outcome assessed safety by quantifying bleeding events. RESULTS: Nosocomial VTE occurred in 2/196 (1.02%) patients who received high-dose heparin thromboprophylaxis and in 5/2,182 (0.23%) patients who received conventional-dose heparin (p = .05). Bleeding occurred in 0/196 (0%) patients in the high-dose heparin group and in 2/2,182 (0.09%) patients in the conventional-dose heparin group (p = .67). All bleeding events were minor. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in the rate of nosocomial VTE in obese patients who received high-dose heparin thromboprophylaxis. Despite receiving a higher heparin dose, no increased risk of bleeding was observed in the high-dose group. Further investigation is needed to identify the optimal heparin dose for thromboprophylaxis in obese patients.

Beta-Blockers in the Prevention and Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: Evidence and Clinical Practice.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent cardiovascular disease characterized by atherosclerotic plaque buildup that can lead to partial or full obstruction of blood flow in the coronary arteries. Treatment for CAD involves a combination of lifestyle changes, pharmacologic therapy, and modern revascularization procedures. Beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (or beta-blockers) have been widely used for decades as a key therapy for CAD. In this review, prior studies are examined to better understand beta-adrenoceptor antagonist use in patients with acute coronary syndrome, stable coronary heart disease, and in the perioperative setting. The evidence for the benefit of beta-blocker therapy is well established for patients with acute myocardial infarction, but it diminishes as the time from the index cardiac event elapses. The evidence for benefit in the perioperative setting is not strong.

What I learned from predatory publishers.

This article is a first-hand account of the author's work identifying and listing predatory publishers from 2012 to 2017. Predatory publishers use the gold (author pays) open access model and aim to generate as much revenue as possible, often foregoing a proper peer review. The paper details how predatory publishers came to exist and shows how they were largely enabled and condoned by the open-access social movement, the scholarly publishing industry, and academic librarians. The author describes tactics predatory publishers used to attempt to be removed from his lists, details the damage predatory journals cause to science, and comments on the future of scholarly publishing.

Predatory Journals Threaten the Quality of Published Medical Research.

Ever since scholarly open-access publishing started to gain a foothold over a decade ago, many hundreds of open-access journals and publishers have emerged around the world, including many journals that are dependent exclusively on payments from authors to meet their expenses. The purpose of this Viewpoint is to describe the negative aspects of predatory publishing and how the behaviors of such publishers erode the principles of the peer-review system. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(1):3-5. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0601.

Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers.

This editorial examines the problem of predatory publishers and how they have negatively affected scholarly communication. Society relies on high-quality, peer-reviewed articles for public policy, legal cases, and improving the public health. Researchers need to be aware of how predatory publishers operate and need to avoid falling into their traps. The editorial examines the recent history of predatory publishers and how they have become prominent in the world of scholarly journals.