Changing roles of the corresponding author - Consequences for the accessibility of medical information.

It appears that ever more frequently the corresponding author of a multi-author manuscript is not what he/she was originally supposed to be: the most involved researcher with the best overview concerning the presented study. Numerous journals now use the term 'corresponding author', however, for the author who acts as a kind of secretary for the submitted manuscript, irrespective of his/her expertize in the subject. Another problem is that a significant number of universities give more scientific credits to the corresponding author than to his/her co-authors, which fairly commonly results in granting the corresponding authorship to the student or young scientist who needs scientific credits most urgently for his/her academic career. Consequently, readers of a multi-author article are nowadays hardly able to judge which author of an interesting article might best be contacted for additional information. An increasing number of journals seem unaware of the problems that this changing role of the corresponding author may cause. The present contribution both mentions the main resulting problems and proposes possible solutions.

Keeping medical science trustworthy: The threat by predatory journals.

Since most scientific journals tend to ask article processes costs from authors, a new category of journals has developed of which the business model is commonly exclusively based on financial contributions by authors. Such journals have become known as predatory journals. The financial contributions that they ask are not always lower than those asked by high-quality journals although they offer less: there is commonly no real review, texts are not edited, and there are commonly no printed editions. The lack of serious reviews makes predatory journals attractive, however, particularly for authors of low-quality (or even fraudulent) manuscripts. It is shown here that numerous - commonly fairly recent - journals, some of which may predatory, attract manuscripts by approaching authors of articles in high-quality journals like Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Publication of articles in such journals contaminates thorough literature and undermines the trustworthiness of the medical society. Any involvement in such journals (as an author, reviewer or editor) of such journals should therefore be discouraged.

Rest is essential for effective therapies, and so it is for preparing a manuscript.

Numerous medical articles are commented upon. This suggests that their scientific quality is insufficient. This need not be the case, however: most comments regard the presentation of the data, the conclusions or lacking information in the discussion. Such flaws can commonly be attributed to either too much haste in writing the manuscript, or insufficient time between finishing the manuscript and submission; this last problem seems the most common cause, as it deprives the author from reading his own text critically and with an open mind. The solution for this problem is simple: after having finished a manuscript, it should be laid aside for at least a week, after which the author should read it with the eyes of a reader, not the eyes of an author. Critical, open-minded reading after rest helps increase the quality of the resulting manuscript, just like rest helps a patient during most therapies.

Hardly traceable pitfalls in medical review articles.

The main purpose of review articles is to increase insight into the best possible practice for increasing the health condition of future subjects. This requires the collection of as many relevant data as possible from earlier case studies, but such data should be mutually independent. If the data from the reviewed single- or multi-case studies are not entirely mutually independent, the conclusions of the review study may easily - though not necessarily - become biased. This is shown on the basis of a 2020 systematic review about the effects of deep dry needling on spasticity and related physical disabilities. We analyzed this study by checking undisclosed possible overlaps regarding the subjects dealt with in the various case studies that were reviewed. This analysis raised also some questions about the accuracy of the number of subjects that had been treated, which is an aspects of which errors can commonly not be disclosed by the readers. The objective of our Letter is to show that insufficient attention by authors, editor and reviewers for an unambiguous presentation of the data regarding the subjects dealt with can make it impossible for readers to draw correct conclusions regarding the optimization of possible treatments.