Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting.

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner. Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication. Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future. Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.

Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology.

Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

Knowledge and Influence of Predatory Journals in Dermatology: A Pan-Austrian Survey.

The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and influence of predatory journals in the field of dermatology in Austria. A total of 286 physicians (50.5% men) completed a questionnaire. The vast majority of subjects read scientific articles (n = 281, 98.3%) and took them into consideration in their clinical decision-making (n = 271, 98.5% of participants that regularly read scientific literature). Open access was known by 161 (56.3%), predatory journals by 84 (29.4%), and the Beall's list by 19 physicians (6.7%). A total of 117 participants (40.9%) had been challenged by patients with results from the scientific literature, including 9 predatory papers. Participants who knew of predatory journals had a higher level of education as well as scientific experience, and were more familiar with the open-access system (p < 0.001). These results indicate that the majority of dermatologists are not familiar with predatory journals. This is particularly the case for physicians in training and in the early stages of their career.

Predatory journals and dishonesty in science.

Predatory magazines are created by unreliable publishers who, after collecting a fee, publish the submitted paper in the Open Access (OA) formula without providing substantive control. For the purpose of "encouraging" authors to submit their work, they often impersonate existing periodicals by using a similar-sounding title, a similar webpage, and copied names of editors of the editorial board. They also offer credits close in name to the Impact Factor. The purpose of such activity is to deceive authors and to earn money in an unfair manner. This contribution presents mechanisms used by such journals and includes suggestions for protection from the duplicity and the subsequent disappointment of publishing, often for an exorbitant fee.

The emerging landscape of scientific publishing.

We present emerging models of publishing which have grown from the phenomenon of open access, the changing role of peer review in the scientific process and the new position of the impact factor. We juxtapose the new models of paid review, eponymous review, no review, post publication review and light review with the classic model which has dominated for a century, detailing advantages, problems and examples of each model to provide a comprehensive overview of the changing landscape of scientific publishing.

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.

Archiving Primary Data: Solutions for Long-Term Studies.

The recent trend for journals to require open access to primary data included in publications has been embraced by many biologists, but has caused apprehension amongst researchers engaged in long-term ecological and evolutionary studies. A worldwide survey of 73 principal investigators (Pls) with long-term studies revealed positive attitudes towards sharing data with the agreement or involvement of the PI, and 93% of PIs have historically shared data. Only 8% were in favor of uncontrolled, open access to primary data while 63% expressed serious concern. We present here their viewpoint on an issue that can have non-trivial scientific consequences. We discuss potential costs of public data archiving and provide possible solutions to meet the needs of journals and researchers.