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.

Investigating the nature of open science practices across complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An audit.

BACKGROUND: Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS). METHODS: CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words "complementary", "alternative" and/or "integrative" were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals. RESULTS: A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8. CONCLUSION: While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Quality assessment of paediatric randomized controlled trials published in China from 1999 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are usually the basis of evidence-based medicine, but whether the results of RCTs can be correctly translated into clinical practice depends on the quality of the literature reported. In this study, we evaluated the general characteristics and quality of paediatric RCTs published in China to provide evidence for the reporting of paediatric RCTs and their application in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of paediatric RCTs published in paediatric journals in China between January 1, 1999, and December 30, 2022. All RCTs that included children (younger than 18 years old) were retrieved, and the general characteristics of the RCTs were extracted and analysed. The quality of the RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane quality assessment protocol. RESULTS: After screening 20 available paediatric journals, 3545 RCTs were included for analysis. The average annual growth rate of the number of published paediatric RCTs from 1999 to 2022 was 7.8% (P = 0.005, R2 = 0.311). Most of the studies were carried out in East China [1148 (32.4%]; the centres of the RCTs were mainly single-centre [3453 (97.4%], and the interventions were mainly medication [2442 (68.9%)]. Comparing RCTs published in 2017-2022 with RCTs published in 1999-2004, the quality of RCTs significantly improved in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. RCTs published in multiple centres from the Chinese Science Citation Database were identified, and the approval of the ethics committee was of better quality for all the analysed risk of bias items. CONCLUSION: The number and quality of paediatric RCTs reported in China have improved in recent years, but the overall quality was relatively low. Special attention should be given to allocation concealment and blinding outcome assessment, and dropouts, adverse effects and sample size calculations should be reported. Promoting government policies, strengthening the standardization of journal publishing and advancing the registration of clinical trials are feasible measures.

Publish and perish: New issues in publication ethics.

The expression "Publish or perish," first appeared in 1942. It signified the rising importance of publication as a means to obtain research funds and establish a secure academic career. The expression is still highly relevant, but increasingly problematic. Perhaps it should be revised to read "Publish and Perish". We have reached a point where researchers, especially in non-English speaking countries, are no longer able to afford to publish their research. There seems little point in undertaking research if we can no longer disseminate or, indeed, apply the wisdom gained from it.

Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience.

When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.

[The FECYT seal of quality, a recognition and a stimulus for Archivos]. / El sello de calidad FECYT, un reconocimiento y un estímulo para Archivos.

Un año más, mediante esta nota editorial, damos cuenta de las estadísticas y los principales avances de nuestra revista. En cuanto a las estadísticas editoriales, que se detallan en los apartados posteriores, podemos afirmar que son las de una revista consolidada: flujo nutrido y constante de trabajos recibidos/publicados, tasas de aceptación y rechazo proporcionadas, tiempos de gestión razonables y diversidad en las autorías. El logro más destacable del 2023 fue superar con éxito el proceso de evaluación de la Octava edición de Evaluación de la calidad editorial y científica de las revistas científicas españolas, comúnmente conocido como 'Sello FECYT'….

[Predatory journals in Orthopedics and Traumatology]. / Revistas depredadoras en Ortopedia y Traumatología.

Predatory journals are distinguished from legitimate journals by their lack of adequate reviews and editorial processes, compromising the quality of published content. These journals do not conduct peer reviews or detect plagiarism, and accept manuscripts without requiring substantial modifications. Their near 100% acceptance rate is driven by profit motives, regardless of the content they publish. While they boast a prestigious editorial board composed of renowned researchers, in most cases, it is a facade aimed at impressing and attracting investigators. Furthermore, these journals lack appropriate ethical practices and are non-transparent in their editorial processes. Predatory journals have impacted multiple disciplines, including Orthopedics and Traumatology, and their presence remains unknown to many researchers, making them unwitting victims. Their strategy involves soliciting articles via email from authors who have published in legitimate journals, promising quick, easy, and inexpensive publication. The implications and negative consequences of predatory journals on the scientific community and researchers are numerous. The purpose of this work is to provide general information about these journals, specifically in the field of Orthopedics and Traumatology, offering guidelines to identify and avoid them, so that authors can make informed decisions when publishing their manuscripts and avoid falling into the hands of predatory journals or publishers.

Las revistas depredadoras se diferencian de las revistas legítimas por su falta de adecuadas revisiones y procesos editoriales, lo que compromete la calidad del contenido publicado. Estas revistas no llevan a cabo revisiones por pares ni realizan acciones que detecten y prevengan el plagio y aceptan manuscritos sin exigir modificaciones sustanciales. Su tasa de aceptación cercana al 100% se debe a su enfoque lucrativo, sin importarles el contenido que publican. Aunque presumen tener un comité editorial compuesto por investigadores destacados, en la mayoría de los casos es una simulación destinada a impresionar y atraer a los investigadores. Además, estas revistas carecen de prácticas éticas adecuadas y no son transparentes en sus procesos editoriales. Las revistas depredadoras han afectado a múltiples disciplinas, incluida la Ortopedia y Traumatología y su presencia es aún desconocida para muchos investigadores, lo que los convierte en víctimas sin saberlo. Su estrategia consiste en solicitar artículos por correo electrónico a autores que han publicado en revistas legítimas, prometiendo una publicación rápida, sencilla y económica. Las implicaciones y consecuencias negativas de las revistas depredadoras en la comunidad científica y los investigadores son numerosas. El propósito de este trabajo es proporcionar información general sobre estas revistas y específicamente en el campo de la Ortopedia y Traumatología, brindando pautas para identificarlas y evitarlas, para que los autores puedan tomar decisiones informadas al publicar sus manuscritos y evitar caer en manos de revistas o editoriales depredadoras.

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks. CONCLUSION: The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.