Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action.

PURPOSE: To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work. DESIGN: Descriptive editorial article. METHODS: Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic. RESULTS: Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific world, on funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties. CONCLUSION: We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.

El escándalo de la cloroquina / The chloroquine scandal

El autor aborda el caso de la cloroquina y la hidroxicloroquina en el contexto de la actual pandemia de COVID-19, a través de dos ejes centrales. Por un lado, el escándalo a nivel editorial y de comunicación de la evidencia, y por otro, el de la toma de decisiones en salud pública. Describe flagrantes debilidades en la cadena de generación, difusión y aplicación del nuevo conocimiento. Adicionalmente, explora iniciativas y propuestas que podrían contribuir a solucionar estos problemas. (AU)

The author addresses the case of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic, through two central axes. On the one hand, the scandal at the editorial and communication level of the evidence, and on the other, that of decision-making in public health. He describes flagrant weaknesses in the chain of generation, diffusion,and application of new knowledge. Additionally, it explores initiatives and proposals that could contribute to solving these problems. (AU)

Ética de la revisión por pares en publicaciones científicas / Ethics of peer reviewing in scientific publications

RESUMEN La revisión por pares garantiza que los materiales publicados sean válidos y confiables, tanto como sea posible. El objetivo fue reconocer la importancia del trabajo de los revisores en las publicaciones científicas médicas y de la observación de los aspectos éticos durante su desempeño. Las revisiones por pares pueden ser a ciegas, a doble ciegas o abiertas, cada una de ellas con ventajas y desventajas. Durante las publicaciones de resultados de investigaciones científicas pueden producirse sesgos por parte de los revisores. Entre los sesgos de los revisores relacionados con faltas éticas se encuentran: los incumplimientos en plazos de revisión, la superficialidad de las revisiones, el lenguaje ofensivo contra editores o autores, el "amiguismo cognitivo" y el "sesgo de ego" por propia voluntad, entre otros. No obstante, es posible implementar acciones para minimizar los sesgos relacionados con esas faltas éticas. El trabajo de los revisores es digno de reconocer, teniendo en cuenta que casi siempre es realizado durante el tiempo libre, de forma voluntaria y por personas de alto prestigio como investigadores. En el mundo actual esta labor ha sido amenazada con la proliferación de revistas predadoras, pero también destacan los intentos para su reivindicación y promoción, como el del sitio web Publons. En el trabajo de los revisores intervienen múltiples factores, a veces contradictorios: intereses, deberes, derechos; pero todos ellos deben ponderarse sobre la base de una sólida formación y desempeño éticos (AU).

ABSTRACT Peer reviews guarantee published materials be as valid and reliable as it be possible. Recognize reviewers' work importance on scientific medical publication as well as the ethics issues to be accomplished during their performance. Development: Peer reviews could be single blind, double blind or open, each one with its advantages and disadvantages. During scientific research results publications, peer reviewer biases could be occurred. Some peer reviewer biases are related to ethical mistakes: no fulfillment of time limits, superficial evaluations, offense languages against editors or authors, at will cognitive cronyism and "ego bias", among others. Nevertheless, measures' implementation to minimize biases related to ethical mistakes is possible. The reviewers' work is suitable to be recognized, taking into account it is done almost all the times on free time, without financial compensation and by researchers with recognized prestige. In the present word, even when this work has been threat by predatory journals spreads, some intent to do it justice and promotion are highlight, as do the website Publons. Multiple factors, contradictory sometime, are involved in the reviewers' work: interests, duties, rights; but all of them should be pondering over the base of a solid ethic education and behavior (AU).

Integridad y conductas inapropiadas en investigación biomédica / Integrity and misconduct in biomedical research

Resumen: Los Comités Editoriales de revistas de corriente principal se ven enfrentados ocasionalmente a con ductas éticas inapropiadas en los manuscritos recibidos. El Comité de Ética en las publicaciones (COPE) ofrece recomendaciones para los editores respecto a cómo actuar frente a la sospecha de falta de ética en los manuscritos, ya sea recibidos o publicados. Cuando se pesquisa una mala práctica durante el proceso de revisión por pares, el manuscrito es rechazado, no obstante, si la conducta ina propiada es detectada después de la publicación de manuscrito, se procede a retractar la publicación. Revista Chilena de Pediatría no ha sido exenta a este tipo de conflictos. En este artículo analizamos los distintos aspectos relacionados con la falta de integridad de las publicaciones, como son las autorías, el plagio y el conflicto de intereses. Podemos concluir que las malas prácticas ocurren principalmente por desconocimiento de los autores, más que por intención de fraude. Se espera que el presente ma nuscrito logre instruir y sensibilizar a nuestros investigadores, respecto a las buenas prácticas en la investigación y publicación, y, contribuir, en lo posible, a prevenir que estas acciones ocurran en los manuscritos enviados a nuestra Revista.

Abstract: Editorial Boards of mainstream journals occasionally face ethical misconducts in received manus cripts. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides recommendations for editors on how to deal with suspected ethical misconduct in either received or published manuscripts. The manus cript is rejected when malpractice is observed during the peer review process, however, if the mis conduct is detected after the publication, the publication will be retracted. The Revista Chilena de Pediatría (Chilean Journal of Pediatrics) has not been exempt from these type of conflicts. In this article, we analyze different aspects regarding the lack of integrity in publications, such as authorship, plagiarism, and conflict of interest. We can conclude that malpractices take place mainly due to the lack of knowledge of the authors rather than intent to defraud. It is expected that this article will suc ceed in instructing and sensitizing our researchers on good practices in research and publication, and contribute, as far as possible, to prevent this actions in the manuscripts sent to our Journal.

Robotic-assisted versus standard unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-evaluation of manuscript conflict of interests, funding, scientific quality and bibliometrics.

PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gained popularity over the last decade claiming enhanced surgical precision and better joint kinematics, with peer-reviewed publications about this new technology also increasing over the past few years. The purpose of our study was to compare manuscripts about robotic-assisted UKA to those about standard UKA in terms of industry funding, author conflict of interest, scientific quality, and bibliometrics. METHODS: A systematic search using PRISMA guidelines on PubMed and Google Scholar from 2012 to 2016 resulted in 45 papers where robotic technology was performed for UKA and 167 papers that UKA were performed without the assistance of a robot. Between the two groups, we compared (1) rate of manuscripts with reported conflict of interest or industry funding, (2) journal impact factor, (3) level of evidence, and (4) relative citation ratio. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent (23/45) of robotic UKA manuscripts were industry-funded or had authors with financial conflict of interest, compared to 29% ([49/167], p < 0.01) of non-robotic UKA papers. Significantly more robotic UKA papers (24% [11/45] vs 9% [16/167), p < 0.01) were published in journals that were not assigned an impact factor by the Journal Citations Report. There was no difference in regard to bibliometrics or level of evidence. CONCLUSION: Manuscripts in which UKA was performed with the assistance of a robot were more likely to be industry funded or be written by authors with financial conflicts of interest and published in less prestigious journals. There were no differences in scientific quality or influence between the two groups. Readers analyzing published data should be aware of the potential conflicts of interests in order to more accurately interpret manuscripts data and conclusions.

Potential Financial Conflict of Interest Among Physician Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: The practice of medicine is based on evidence from peer-reviewed literature. As can occur with author-related funding, the integrity of the process by which manuscripts are reviewed, edited, and approved for publication may be at risk due to financial conflict of interest. The purpose of our study was to assess potential financial conflict of interest among physician editorial board members of orthopaedic surgery journals. METHODS: We identified the physician editorial board members of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals and searched the 2014 payments that were archived in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments system (mandated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act). Total dollar values were calculated and tabulated in a multilevel fashion: nothing reported, >$0 and ≤$10,000, >$10,000, >$250,000, and >$950,000. RESULTS: We identified 908 physician editors of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals. Something of financial value was received by 78% (712 of 908) of these individuals. Rates of editorial board potential financial conflict of interest for individual journals ranged from 4% to 73% in the >$10,000 category. At the >$250,000 mark, rates ranged from 0% (2 journals) to 31%. When applying the >$950,000 criterion, physician potential conflict of interest ranged from 0% (5 journals) to 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Editor-related potential financial conflicts of interest exist in the orthopaedic surgery journals that we analyzed. These potential financial conflicts could possibly impact reviews.

Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.

A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. The information of retracted papers was collected, which primarily included publisher, journal, journal impact factor, country, as well as publication and retraction year. Overall, 250 retracted papers were identified. They were published in 48 journals by six publishers. The top 5 journals included the Journal of Vibration and Control (24.8%), Molecular Biology Reports (11.6%), Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology (8.0%), Tumour Biology (6.8%) and European Journal of Medical Research (6.4%). The publishers included SAGE (31%), Springer (26%), BioMed Central (18%), Elsevier (13%), Informa (11%) and LWW (1%). A minority (4%) of retracted papers were published in Science Citation Index (SCI) journals with an impact factor of >5. A majority (74.8%) of retracted papers were written by Chinese researchers. In terms of the publication year, the retracted papers were published since 2010, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2014 (40.8%). In terms of the retraction year, the retractions started in 2012, and the number of retractions peaked in 2015 (59.6%). The number of papers retracted due to faked peer reviews differs largely among journals and countries. With the improvement of the peer review mechanism and increased education about publishing ethics, such academic misconduct may gradually disappear in future.

Polaridad de los comentarios y consistencia interna en los informes de arbitraje de artículos de investigación / Polarity of comments and internal consistency in peer review reports on scientific research articles / Polaridade dos comentários e consistência interna nos informes de arbitragem de artigos de pesquisa

El informe de arbitraje en los procesos de revisión por pares de artículos de investigación es un género clave para explicar cómo se construye colectivamente el conocimiento científico. En estos informes los evaluadores emiten, junto con una serie de comentarios, una recomendación de publicación. El análisis de la calidad del proceso de evaluación por pares se ha realizado a partir de indicadores, como las tasas de rechazo o el grado de acuerdo entre los evaluadores. Sin embargo, aún queda pendiente una evaluación cualitativa del proceso. El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir la proporción, según su polaridad (positiva, negativa y neutra), de los comentarios de 56 informes de evaluación de la Revista Onomázein y determinar si esa proporción era consistente con la recomendación de los evaluadores (Aceptado, Aceptado con enmiendas mayores o menores, y Rechazado). Del análisis de 1.472 comentarios se determinó que, independientemente de la decisión, la mayor proporción corresponde a comentarios negativos. Asimismo, podemos afirmar que los procesos analizados presentan un alto grado de consistencia. Mientras más favorable es la recomendación de los árbitros mayor es la proporción de comentarios positivos emitidos y, correspondientemente, menor es la proporción de comentarios negativos.

Peer review reports on scientific articles means a key genre to explain how scientific knowledge is collectively constructed. In these reports, reviewers write a recommendation for publication along with a series of comments. The quality analysis of the peer review process has been commonly conducted based on indicators, such as rejection rates and the agreement level among evaluators. However, a more qualitative investigation on the process still remains outstanding. This work aims at describing the polarity (positive, negative and neutral) of comments corresponding to 56 peer review reports belonging to the journal Onomázein and determining whether this proportion is consistent with the reviewers recommendation, i.e. Accepted, Accepted with major revisions, Accepted with minor revisions and Rejected). After the analysis of 1.472 comments, it was possible to determine that the highest proportion of comments is negative, independent of the decision. The analyzed processes also showed a high level of consistency. The more favorable the recommendation, the higher the proportion of positive comments, and, consequently, the less the proportion of negative comments.

O informe de arbitragem nos processos de revisão por pares de artigos de pesquisa é um gênero chave para explicar como se constrói coletivamente o conhecimento científico. Nestes informes os avaliadores emitem, junto com uma série de comentários, uma recomendação de publicação. A análise da qualidade do processo de avaliação por pares foi realizada a partir de indicadores, como as taxas de recusa ou o grau de acordo entre os avaliadores. No entanto, ainda resta pendente uma avaliação qualitativa do processo. O objetivo deste trabalho foi descrever a proporção, segundo a sua polaridade (positiva, negativa e neutra), dos comentários de 56 informes de avaliação da Revista Onomázein e determinar se essa proporção era consistente com a recomendação dos avaliadores (Aceito, Aceito com emendas maiores ou menores, e Recusado). Da análise de 1.472 comentários se determinou que, independentemente da decisão, a maior proporção corresponde a comentários negativos. Assim mesmo, podemos afirmar que os processos analisados apresentam um alto grau de consistência. Quanto mais favorável for a recomendação dos árbitros maior será a proporção de comentários positivos emitidos e, correspondentemente, menor é a proporção de comentários negativos.

Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Along with the proliferation of Open Access (OA) publishing, the interest for comparing the scientific quality of studies published in OA journals versus subscription journals has also increased. With our study we aimed to compare the methodological quality and the quality of reporting of primary epidemiological studies and systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals. METHODS: In order to identify the studies to appraise, we listed all OA and non-OA journals which published in 2013 at least one primary epidemiologic study (case-control or cohort study design), and at least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the field of oncology. For the appraisal, we picked up the first studies published in 2013 with case-control or cohort study design from OA journals (Group A; n = 12), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group B; n = 26); the first systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2013 from OA journals (Group C; n = 15), and in the same time period from non-OA journals (Group D; n = 32). We evaluated the methodological quality of studies by assessing the compliance of case-control and cohort studies to Newcastle and Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale, and the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale. The quality of reporting was assessed considering the adherence of case-control and cohort studies to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist, and the adherence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. RESULTS: Among case-control and cohort studies published in OA and non-OA journals, we did not observe significant differences in the median value of NOS score (Group A: 7 (IQR 7-8) versus Group B: 8 (7-9); p = 0.5) and in the adherence to STROBE checklist (Group A, 75% versus Group B, 80%; p = 0.1). The results did not change after adjustment for impact factor. The compliance with AMSTAR and adherence to PRISMA checklist were comparable between systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in OA and non-OA journals (Group C, 46.0% versus Group D, 55.0%; p = 0.06), (Group C, 72.0% versus Group D, 76.0%; p = 0.1), respectively). CONCLUSION: The epidemiological studies published in OA journals in the field of oncology approach the same methodological quality and quality of reporting as studies published in non-OA journals.