Revistas de acceso abierto y voracidad editorial en cuidados paliativos / Open access journals and predatory publishing in palliative care

OBJETIVO: Las revistas de acceso abierto han aumentado en los últimos años en todos los ámbitos de la medicina. Una corrupción de este acceso abierto es lo que se ha llamado voracidad editorial (predatory publishing). Pretendemos conocer qué revistas del ámbito de cuidados paliativos están disponibles en acceso abierto y saber si pueden tener perfil de voracidad editorial. MÉTODO: Búsqueda de revistas sobre cuidados paliativos en acceso abierto en buscadores online, registros de revistas y correos electrónicos recibidos de estas publicaciones. Variables registradas: nombre, editorial y página web de la revista, perfil del pago, inclusión en lista de Beall, registro e indexación, correos electrónicos solicitando trabajos, posibilidad de optar a revisor o comité editorial. RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 32 revistas del ámbito de cuidados paliativos con opción total o parcial de acceso abierto; tres de ellas no se encontraban activas. La mediana de coste por publicación de un trabajo original fue de 1.389€. Se encontraron tres perfiles de publicación: nueve revistas de editoriales reconocidas, indexadas e incluso con factor de impacto que admiten la posibilidad de publicar con acceso abierto; siete revistas de editoriales de perfil académico (open access scholarly), algunas indexadas y con factor de impacto, que solo publican con acceso abierto, y 16 revistas sospechosas de voracidad editorial. Encontramos asociación entre la presencia en la lista de Beall y algunos criterios de sospecha de voracidad editorial: ausencia de factor de impacto (p = 0,004) o de indexación en PubMed (p = 0,001); ausencia de registro en OASPA (p = 0,001); envío de correos electrónicos solicitando trabajos (p = 0,05); opción de pago único por periodo de tiempo (p = 0,02), y flexibilidad en el pago según tipo de artículo (p = 0,02). CONCLUSIONES: En el ámbito de los cuidados paliativos hay publicaciones de acceso abierto, algunas de ellas sospechosas de ser voracidad editorial

OBJECTIVE: Open access journals have increased in recent years in all areas of medicine. Predatory publishing is corrupting this open access. The objective of this study is to find out the medical journals that are available in open access in the field of Palliative Care and establish whether they could have a predatory publishing profile. Method: Online search with Google and Bing, and a search in open access journal registries, and e-mails from open access Palliative Care journals. Registered variables: name, editorial and website of the journal, payment profile, inclusion in Beall's list register and indexation, e-mails requesting articles, and possibility to become reviewer or editorial committee. RESULTS: We found 32 journals in the field of Palliative Care with full or partial open access option; three of them were not active. The median original publication fee was 1389€. Globally, three types of journal could be distinguished: 9 journals of recognized publishers, indexed and even with impact factor, that allow the possibility of publishing with open access; 7 open access scholarly journals, some indexed and with impact factor, that only publish open access, and 16 suspected predatory journals. We found an association between the presence of the journal on Beall's list and some suspicion criteria for predatory publishing such as: absence of impact factor (P=.004) or PubMed indexation (P=.001); no OASPA registration (P=.001); e-mails requesting works (P=.05); option of payment per time period (P=.02); and flexibility in payment according to type of article (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the field of Palliative Care there open access publications, however some of them are suspected predatory publishing

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of methylphenidate on depressive symptoms in advanced cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Methylphenidate is a psychostimulant that has been used to relieve depressive symptoms in advanced cancer patients. No studies compare its efficacy against placebo in this group of patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy of methylphenidate compared with placebo in the relief of depressive symptoms in advanced cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial was undertaken comparing the efficacy of methylphenidate and placebo in depressive symptoms. Advanced stage cancer patients were eligible if they scored at least two points on the Two Question Screening Survey for depression. A reduction of at least two points on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale for depression (0-10) was considered as a response. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were included (methylphenidate: n=31, placebo: n=38); median daily dose of methylphenidate was 25 mg. Fifty-eight patients (84%) who completed the first week of treatment were considered suitable for evaluation. In the intention to treat analysis, there were 14/31 (45%) responses with methylphenidate and 10/38 (26%) responses with placebo (difference: 19%; 95% CI: 4% to 39%; p=0.10). With the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 11/19 (58%) patients with methylphenidate and 10/24 (42%) with placebo improved from a score compatible with depression in the first 7 days (difference 16%; 95% CI 13% to 42%; p=0.29). The proportion of patients indicating adverse effects was similar for both cohorts (p=0.99). CONCLUSION: Compared with the placebo, methylphenidate demonstrated a positive trend in the incidence of response for depressive symptoms in advanced cancer patients.