Un caso de publicación en revista médica pirata / A case of publication in a predatory medical journal

Las revistas piratas o depredadoras (predatory journals en inglés) son cada vez más frecuentes y sorprenden en su buena fe a investigadores/as que buscan publicar sus manuscritos. Este artículo presenta un caso de descubrimiento y demostración de publicación en una revista pirata y un conjunto de sugerencias para evitar este error, como un aporte a profesionales de ciencias de la salud que realizan actividades de investigación. El resultado de las investigaciones mostró que la revista European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology(EJGO) es una revista pirata: fundada en 1980, solo desde 2020 posee International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) digital: sus primeras editoras, hasta 2020, no trabajaban en el área disciplinar de la revista ni pudieron ser rastreadas en ORCID; su actual editor no responde correos; la dirección postal de la editorial es la misma de una empresa canadiense importadora de juguetes. Hasta 2021 no poseía una plataforma web para el envío del manuscrito sino se enviaba el trabajo a un correo electrónico genérico. A raíz de nuestras denuncias fue suspendida de Scopus (Scimago) y Clarivate (Web of Science). Cuando Clarivate forzó a EJGO a avisar a sus lectores que estaba suspendida, inmediatamente cambió su página web y la empresa editora. En síntesis, se muestra un caso real de publicación en una revista pirata, la detección y comprobación de que dicha revista efectivamente cae en esta categoría y el aporte de conceptos y definiciones para tener en cuenta a fin de evitar caer en este error. (AU)

Predatory journals are becoming more frequent every day and surprise researchers who seek to publish their manuscripts. This article presents a case of discovery and demonstration of publication in a predatory journal and a set of suggestions to avoid this error, in a contribution to the education of health science professionals. The result of the research showed that the European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology (EJGO) is a pirate journal: founded in 1980, it obtainthe digital International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) in 2020; its former editors, until 2020, do not work in the disciplinary area of the journal and could not be tracked in ORCID, the new editor did not respond any mail; the postal address of the publisher is the same as that of a Canadian toy import company. Until 2021, it did not have a web platform for sending the manuscript, but rather the work was sent to a generic email. As a result of our complaints, it was suspended from Scopus (Scimago) and Clarivate (Web of Science).When Clarivate forced EJGO to notify its readers that it was suspended, it immediately changed its website and publisher. In brief, a real case of publication in a predatory journal is shown, the detection and verification that this journal actually falls into this category and contribution of concepts and definitions to avoid falling into this error. (AU)

Visible name changes promote inequity for transgender researchers.

Allowing for invisible name changes is a matter of dignity for trans researchers. This would prevent their own publication record from outing them without their consent. A single, centralized name change request through ORCID iD would alleviate the burden of changing each publication individually.

A linguagem acadêmica e o estigma na longevidade / Academic terminologies and stigma in later life

It is common to find stigmatising terms being used to describe older people with dementia and / or living in care homes in the Brazilian literature, such as 'demented person', 'patient in asylum', or 'institutionalised elderly'. Historically, both mental illnesses and long-term care settings for older people have had negative connotations in society. The use of terms that historically refer to social segregation, institutionalization, or that reduce the individual to their disease can therefore contribute to the perpetuation of the stigma, prejudice, depersonalization and discrimination experienced by these people. This opinion paper aims to stimulate discussions about the use of such terms by the Brazilian scientific community and the media, as well as to foster reflections on the impact of the use of such language as part of current academic and clinical environments. The author mentions examples of stigmatizing phrases and words that are commonly found in the literature and mentions some of the consequences of stigma for people with dementia and those living in care homes. The author also refers to international documents which can be used as references for more inclusive and ethical writing.

É comum encontrarmos na literatura científica brasileira termos potencialmente estigmatizantes sendo utilizados para descrever pessoas com demência e pessoas vivendo em residenciais de cuidado, tais como os termos pessoa demenciada, paciente asilado ou idoso institucionalizado. Historicamente, transtornos mentais e residenciais de cuidado de longa duração para idosos detêm conotações negativas na sociedade. O uso de termos que historicamente remetem à segregação social, à institucionalização ou que reduzam o indivíduo à sua doença pode, portanto, contribuir para a perpetuação do estigma, do preconceito, da despersonalização e da discriminação frequentemente vividos por essas pessoas. Este artigo de opinião tem por objetivo fomentar discussões sobre o uso de tais termos pela comunidade científica brasileira e pela mídia, bem como refletir sobre o impacto do uso de tal linguagem como parte das culturas acadêmica e clínica atuais. A autora cita exemplos de frases e palavras estigmatizantes que são comumente encontradas em publicações brasileiras e aponta algumas das consequências do estigma para as pessoas com demência e aquelas que vivem em residenciais de cuidados. A autora também menciona documentos internacionais que podem ser utilizados como referência para uma escrita mais inclusiva e ética.

Populating the Data Ark: An attempt to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from the most highly-cited psychology and psychiatry articles.

The vast majority of scientific articles published to-date have not been accompanied by concomitant publication of the underlying research data upon which they are based. This state of affairs precludes the routine re-use and re-analysis of research data, undermining the efficiency of the scientific enterprise, and compromising the credibility of claims that cannot be independently verified. It may be especially important to make data available for the most influential studies that have provided a foundation for subsequent research and theory development. Therefore, we launched an initiative-the Data Ark-to examine whether we could retrospectively enhance the preservation and accessibility of important scientific data. Here we report the outcome of our efforts to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from 111 of the most highly-cited articles published in psychology and psychiatry between 2006-2011 (n = 48) and 2014-2016 (n = 63). Most data sets were not made available (76/111, 68%, 95% CI [60, 77]), some were only made available with restrictions (20/111, 18%, 95% CI [10, 27]), and few were made available in a completely unrestricted form (15/111, 14%, 95% CI [5, 22]). Where extant data sharing systems were in place, they usually (17/22, 77%, 95% CI [54, 91]) did not allow unrestricted access. Authors reported several barriers to data sharing, including issues related to data ownership and ethical concerns. The Data Ark initiative could help preserve and liberate important scientific data, surface barriers to data sharing, and advance community discussions on data stewardship.

Evaluation of research in India - are we doing it right?

The evaluation of performance in scientific research at any level - whether at the individual, institutional, research council or country level - is not easy. Traditionally, research evaluation at the individual and institutional levels has depended largely on peer opinion, but with the rapid growth of science over the last century and the availability of databases and scientometric techniques, quantitative indicators have gained importance. Both peer review and metrics are subject to flaws, more so in India because of the way they are used. Government agencies, funding bodies and academic and research institutions in India suffer from the impact factor and h-index syndrome. The uninformed use of indicators such as average and cumulative impact factors and the arbitrary criteria stipulated by agencies such as the University Grants Commission, Indian Council of Medical Research and the Medical Council of India for selection and promotion of faculty have made it difficult to distinguish good science from the bad and the indifferent. The exaggerated importance given by these agencies to the number of publications, irrespective of what they report, has led to an ethical crisis in scholarly communication and the reward system in science. These agencies seem to be unconcerned about the proliferation of predatory journals and conferences. After giving examples of the bizarre use of indicators and arbitrary recruitment and evaluation practices in India, we summarise the merits of peer review and quantitative indicators and the evaluation practices followed elsewhere.

Sisyphus desperately seeking publisher.

As a punishment for his trickery, King Sisyphus was made to endlessly roll a huge boulder up a steep hill. The maddening nature of the punishment was reserved for King Sisyphus due to his hubristic belief that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus himself. Today's scientists also pay a heavy price for their hubris and narcissism. They try to trick the editors of a few 'top' journals by peppering their papers with glitter and 'bling-bling', making overblown promises, and giving minimal credit to their predecessors. The editors wield their Olympian authority by making today's scientists endlessly push their weighty boulders up steep hills. By bowing to this implacable ritual, we scientists confer undue power to a handful of popular but irresponsible journals.