ERS statement on transition of care in childhood interstitial lung diseases.

Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) are a heterogeneous group of rare diffuse diseases affecting the lung parenchyma in children and adults. Childhood interstitial lung diseases (chILD) are often diagnosed at very young age, affect the developing lung, and can have different presentations and prognosis compared to adult forms of these diseases. Also, chILD in many cases may apparently remit, and have a better response to therapy and better prognosis than adult ILD. Many affected children will reach adulthood with minimal activity or clinical remission of the disease. They need continuing care and follow-up from childhood to adulthood if the disease persists and progresses over time but also if they are asymptomatic and in full remission. Therefore, for every chILD patient an active transition process from paediatric to adult care should be guaranteed. This ERS statement provides a review of the literature and current practice concerning transition of care in chILD. It draws on work in existing transition care programs in other chronic respiratory diseases, disease-overarching transition of care programs, evidence on the impact of these programs on clinical outcomes, current evidence regarding long-term remission of chILD as well as the lack of harmonisation between the current adult ILD and chILD classifications impacting on transition of care. While the transition system is well established in several chronic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis or diabetes mellitus, we could not find sufficient published evidence on transition systems in chILD. This statement summarises current knowledge but cannot yet provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

Compliance with ethical rules for scientific publishing in biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports.

This study examined compliance with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME in Biomedical Open Access journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). 259 Open Access journals were drawn from the JCR database and on the basis of their websites their compliance with 14 criteria for transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing was verified. Journals received penalty points for each unfulfilled criterion when they failed to comply with the criteria defined by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. The average number of obtained penalty points was 6, where 149 (57.5%) journals received 6 points and 110 (42.5%) journals 7 points. Only 4 journals met all criteria and did not receive any penalty points. Most of the journals did not comply with the criteria declaration of Creative Commons license (164 journals), affiliation of editorial board members (116), unambiguity of article processing charges (115), anti-plagiarism policy (113) and the number of editorial board members from developing countries (99). The research shows that JCR cannot be used as a whitelist of journals that comply with the criteria of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.

[Predatory journals: how their publishers operate and how to avoid them]. / Predátorské casopisy: praktiky jejich vydavatelu a jak se jim bránit.

Authors who publish in scientific or scholarly journals today face the risk of publishing in so-called predatory journals. These journals exploit the noble idea of the Open Access movement, whose goal is to make the latest scientific findings available for free. Predatory journals, unlike the reputable ones working on an Open Access basis, neglect the review process and publish low-quality submissions. The basic attributes of predatory journals are a very quick review process or even none at all, failure to be transparent about author fees for publishing an article, misleading potential authors by imitating the names of well-established journals, and false information on indexing in renowned databases or assigned impact factor. Some preventive measures against publishing in predatory journals or drawing information from them are: a thorough credibility check of the journals webpages, verification of the journals indexing on Bealls List and in the following databases: Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ERIH PLUS and DOAJ. Asking other scientists or scholars about their experience with a given journal can also be helpful. Without these necessary steps authors face an increased risk of publishing in a journal of poor quality, which will prevent them from obtaining Research and Development Council points (awarded based on the Information Register of Research & Development results); even more importantly, it may damage their reputation as well as the good name of their home institution in the professional community.Key words: academic writing - medical journals - Open Access - predatory journals - predatory publishers - scientific publications.

Perception of Technology-Enhanced Learning by Medical Students: an Integrative Review.

This review aims to explore the perception of technology-enhanced learning by medical students. From the initial 2947 records found, 38 studies from journals indexed in the Web of Science database were included after screening. Several main topics were isolated, based on a thematic analysis: student's attitude towards e-learning and modern technologies in medical education; social networks, video, and mobile devices as information source and communication tool; and barriers to the use of technologies in medical education. The results have shown that a positive attitude towards technologies in medical education and learning is prevalent among students. The popularity of blended learning was confirmed.