Global Landscape of the Attack of Predatory Journals in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

An audit of the editorial process at the Indian Journal of Cancer: Lessons learned, and how to improve chances of acceptance of your paper.

BACKGROUND: The editors of the Indian Journal of Cancer (IJC) have not, so far, objectively analyzed the editorial processes involving author, referee, and editor data of the journal. Hence, we aimed at doing so in this audit. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed manuscripts submitted to the IJC from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020, for data related to the peer-review process. Microsoft Excel was used to enter the retrieved information and to carry out the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen manuscripts were submitted during the study period. Of these, three were excluded from the study. Of the 316, 79 (25%) were articles on laboratory medicine; 182 (57.6%) were original articles. About half of the submitted manuscripts (166, 52.5%) were desk-rejected. Of the remaining 149 manuscripts, 105 did not follow the instructions to contributors (ITC) and required a median number of two revisions (range = 1-5) to satisfy the ITC. To review 107 manuscripts, 536 external referees were invited; of them 306 did not respond, 79 declined the invitation, and 151 accepted the invitation. Of these 151, 132 reverted with comments. Of the 200 Indians who were invited as referees, 118 (59%) accepted the invitation, whereas of the 336 non-Indian referees, only 33 (9.8%) did. Of the 107 Indian and 25 non-Indian referees who sent their comments, 86 (80.4%) and 19 (88%), respectively, offered useful comments. The median number of days to decision: for desk-rejection was 1 day (range = 0 - 42) days, for rejection after peer-review was 67 (range = 4 - 309) days, and for acceptance was 133.5 (range = 42 - 305) days. Decision has not yet been taken for 14 manuscripts. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that it is difficult to get referees. Also, a significant number of authors do not read or follow the ITC. We suggest that the time taken for a decision can be appreciably improved if these issues are addressed.

Can Sex and Seniority Predict the Quality of a Journal Reviewer's Manuscript Critique?

PURPOSE: To evaluate reviewers' timeliness and review quality for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) by sex and seniority. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The IJROBP editorial office provided data on 3962 individuals invited to review manuscripts from 2011 through 2014. We identified 1657 reviewers who had been invited to provide a review on at least 3 occasions during the study period and compared review timeliness and scoring between male and female reviewers. We confirmed the reviewers' sex after having unblinded their names based on our personal acquaintance with them and via an Internet search on their department websites. We then did a subset analysis of 124 US-based reviewers who had returned a "major revision" decision. We used the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to rate their reviews. We used odds ratios and t tests to look for differences in mean RQI scores and factors that might be associated with quality-in particular, Hirsch indices (h indices) and year of first certification. RESULTS: Of the 1657 reviewers of interest, 1245 (75.1%) were men and 412 (24.9%) were women. We found no statistically significant differences between men and women in the time to respond to invitations. There were no statistically significant differences in timeliness or review reminders based on sex. Our subset analysis showed no difference in quality (RQI scores) based on the reviewers' sex, h index, or year of first certification. CONCLUSIONS: Women and men render reviews of equal quality regardless of seniority and h index, yet women have been invited less frequently to review. This is likely because of the underrepresentation of women in radiation oncology. A more balanced academic population is needed to address this continuing disparity of women's representation in academic publishing.

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.

Health Research Titles and Guidelines Improve Impact and Article Acceptance Rates.

The peer-reviewed publication of Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Techniques, and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation is the result of a team effort. Our assistant editors-in-chief are a notable part of this team who are specifically credited for, among other contributions, leadership in organizing, creating, and publishing a series of pearls, templates, and checklists for health research authors as well as reviewers, editors, and readers. These articles and tools are available under drop-down menus on the Arthroscopy journal home page. Our series of research pearls concludes with 2 articles on the weighty impact of journal article titles and on instruments to improve research publication quality.

Assessment of variables that influence agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International.

INTRODUCTION: A common criticism of the peer-review process is the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the process. The purpose of this investigation was to examine level of agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and analyze variables which may have influenced agreement in order to better understand the peer-review process. METHODS: Approval to conduct this investigation was obtained from the Executive Board and Editor in Chief of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during the calendar year 2016 which underwent formal peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. RESULTS: 442 manuscripts underwent formal blinded peer-review by two independent reviewers during the study period. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the same initial recommendation. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between the group of reviewers who agreed as compared to those who disagreed on the initial round of peer review. A similar number of indexed peer-reviewed publications between reviewers correlated with increased levels of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, there was 45% initial agreement between reviewers for FAI when assessing the same manuscript. Aside from research productivity, no other reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Specific recommendations and changes may be considered to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer-review process.

Addressing Challenges in Converting Grant-Funded Infrastructures to Broadly Used Research Resources.

The NCI invests heavily in research resources to serve the research community, including datasets, biospecimen banks, and networks of institutions in which clinical trials and other human subjects research are conducted. These resources often begin as grant-funded infrastructure initiated by scientists based on their own scientific interests, with a subsequent recognition of additional scientific uses. Although converting existing project-specific research activities into research resources may appear efficient in terms of time and financial investment, challenges can arise that undermine this efficiency and jeopardize future use. Here, we describe three challenges in the conversion process: (i) project-based infrastructure versus a research resource for a broader research community; (ii) complexity versus ease of use; and (iii) individual professional goals versus research resource priorities. We use our experience with the NCI-funded Cancer Research Network, particularly the Virtual Data Warehouse, to illustrate each challenge, concluding with strategies to mitigate each one. As studies grow in size and complexity, an ever-increasing volume of data, biospecimens, and human subjects research networks will be available for conversion to resources for scientific questions beyond those originally proposed. Addressing likely challenges thoughtfully can result in a more efficient conversion process and ultimately greater scientific impact.

The Editing Process-From the Personal to the Professional.

Along with my colleagues, I presented a number of sessions at the 2019 Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Congress on publishing and how it contributes to career advancement and professional fulfillment. Ellen Carr, RN, MSN, AOCN®, editor of the Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, Leslie McGee, MA, senior editorial manager at ONS, and I talked about various aspects of the publishing process and answered questions from enthusiastic audience members, many of whom had not published before. As we described the process of writing a manuscript, following the instructions for authors, and eventually finding a home for the work, I thought about the important role that editing plays.

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.