Avoiding predatory publishing for early career neurosurgeons: what should you know before you submit?

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

Objective

The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.

Methods

Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.

Results

Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.

Conclusion

The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals

BACKGROUND

Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University.

RESULTS

Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals.

CONCLUSION

Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.

PURPOSE

To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.

RESULTS

The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.

CONCLUSION

The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

h-Index, Journal Citation Indicator, and Other Impact Factors in Neurosurgical Publications: Is There a Cost Factor That Determines the Quality?

OBJECTIVE

There has been an increase in number of Neurosurgical publications, including open access (OA), in recent years. We aimed to compare journals' performance and the relationship to submission fees incurred in publication.

METHODS

We identified 53 journals issuing neurosurgery-related work. Quantitative analysis from various search engines involved obtaining h-index, Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), and other metrics such as Immediacy Index and 5-year impact factor utilising Journal Citation Reports. OA fees and individual subscription fees were collected. Correlations were produced using Spearman rho (ρ) (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Median h-index for 53 journals was 54 (range: 0-292), with JCI median reported as 0.785 (range: 0-2.45). Median Immediacy Index was 0.797 (range: 0-4.076), and median for 5-year impact factor was 2.76 (range: 0-12.704). There was a very strong positive correlation between JCI and Immediacy Index, JCI and 5-year impact factor, and 5-year impact factor and Immediacy Index (ρ > 0.7, P < 0.05). It is unclear whether there was any correlation between the indices and the OA costs and subscription costs for personal usage (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Larger costs incurred for OA fees and subscription costs for personal use do not clearly reflect on the journals' performance, as quantified by using various indices. There appears to be a strong association with performance across the journals' metrics. It would be beneficial to include learning about bibliometric indices' impact for research publications in medical education training to maximize the quality of the scientific work produced and increase the visibility of the information produced. The potential full movement to exclusively OA journals would create a significant barrier for junior researchers, small institutions, and full time-trainee physicians with limited funding available. This study suggests the need for a robust measurement of journals' output and the quality of the work produced.

Prediction of glioma-subtypes: comparison of performance on a DL classifier using bounding box areas versus annotated tumors

Background

For brain tumors, identifying the molecular subtypes from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is desirable, but remains a challenging task. Recent machine learning and deep learning (DL) approaches may help the classification/prediction of tumor subtypes through MRIs. However, most of these methods require annotated data with ground truth (GT) tumor areas manually drawn by medical experts. The manual annotation is a time consuming process with high demand on medical personnel. As an alternative automatic segmentation is often used. However, it does not guarantee the quality and could lead to improper or failed segmented boundaries due to differences in MRI acquisition parameters across imaging centers, as segmentation is an ill-defined problem. Analogous to visual object tracking and classification, this paper shifts the paradigm by training a classifier using tumor bounding box areas in MR images. The aim of our study is to see whether it is possible to replace GT tumor areas by tumor bounding box areas (e.g. ellipse shaped boxes) for classification without a significant drop in performance.

Method

In patients with diffuse gliomas, training a deep learning classifier for subtype prediction by employing tumor regions of interest (ROIs) using ellipse bounding box versus manual annotated data. Experiments were conducted on two datasets (US and TCGA) consisting of multi-modality MRI scans where the US dataset contained patients with diffuse low-grade gliomas (dLGG) exclusively.

Results

Prediction rates were obtained on 2 test datasets: 69.86% for 1p/19q codeletion status on US dataset and 79.50% for IDH mutation/wild-type on TCGA dataset. Comparisons with that of using annotated GT tumor data for training showed an average of 3.0% degradation (2.92% for 1p/19q codeletion status and 3.23% for IDH genotype).

Conclusion

Using tumor ROIs, i.e., ellipse bounding box tumor areas to replace annotated GT tumor areas for training a deep learning scheme, cause only a modest decline in performance in terms of subtype prediction. With more data that can be made available, this may be a reasonable trade-off where decline in performance may be counteracted with more data.

Vulnerability of African Neurosurgery to Predatory Journals: An Electronic Survey of Aspiring Neurosurgeons, Residents, and Consultants

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals (PJs) publish research with little to no rigorous peer review in exchange for money. It is unclear what proportion of researchers is vulnerable to PJs and which factors are associated with vulnerability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of African neurosurgery researchers to PJs and identify their correlates.

METHODS

A 3-part electronic survey in English and French versions was distributed via social media to African consultants and trainees from November 1 to December 1, 2021. Bivariable relationships were evaluated with χ² test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman ρ correlation, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 101 respondents to the survey (response rate 56.1%). Respondents had mean age of 34.9 years, 82.2% were male (n = 83), 38.6% were consultant neurosurgeons (n = 39), and 33.7% were from Central Africa (n = 34). Of respondents, 66 had published ≥ 1 articles in the past, and 13 had published at least 1 article in a PJ. A PJ had contacted 34 respondents via e-mail, and 8 respondents had reviewed articles for a PJ. The Think. Check. Submit initiative and Beall's list were familiar to 19 and 13 respondents, respectively. Publication in PJs was correlated with the respondent's age (R = 0.23, P = 0.02) and total scholarly output (R = 0.38, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Young African neurosurgery researchers are vulnerable to PJs primarily because they are not familiar with the concept of PJs or how to identify them.

Evaluating the Impact of Intraoperative MRI in Neuro-Oncology by Scientometric Analysis

(1) Objective—Intraoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (IOMRI) guided surgery has revolutionized neurosurgery and has especially impacted the field of Neuro-Oncology, with randomized controlled trails demonstrating improved resection, fewer postoperative deficits and enhanced survival rates. Bibliometric analysis allows for analysing chronological trends and measuring the impact and directions of research in a particular field. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first Bibliometric analysis conducted on IOMRI. (2) Methods—a title specific search of the Web of Science database was executed using the keywords ‘intraoperative MRI’, ‘intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging’, and “IOMRI’ on 23rd April 2021. Results—663 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. In addition, the 100 most cited were analysed as well. Among these 100 articles, 76 were original research papers, while 14 others were review articles. Amongst all the authors, Ganslandt contributed the maximum number of articles, with USA being the largest single source of these articles, followed by Germany. Interestingly, a shift of trends from “Image guided surgery’ and ‘accuracy’ in the early 2000s to ‘extent of resection’, ‘impact’, and ‘survival’ in the later years was noted. (3) Conclusions—IOMRI has now become an integral part of neurosurgery, especially in neuro-oncology. Focus has now shifted from implementation to refinement of technique in the form of functional and oncological outcomes. Therefore, future research in this direction is imperative and will be of more impact that in any other sub-field related to IOMRI.

Avoiding predatory publishing for early-career ophthalmologists

This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall’s, Cabell’s, Manca’s, and Strinzel’s list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50–500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50–3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.

Largest neurosurgical social media group and its impact on communication and research

BACKGROUND

The use of social media to communicate and disseminate knowledge has increased exponentially, especially in the field of neurosurgery. 'Neurosurgery cocktail' (NC) was developed by a group of young neurosurgeons as a means of sharing didactic materials and clinical experiences via social media. It connects 35.000 neurosurgeons worldwide on multiple platforms, primarily Facebook and Twitter. Given the rising utilization of social media in neurosurgery, the popularity of NC has also increased since its inception. In this study, the authors surveyed the social media analytics of NC for both Facebook and Twitter. Besides, we reviewed the literature on the use of social media in neurosurgery.

METHODS

Facebook and Twitter metrics were extracted through each respective platform's analytics tools from December 2020 (earliest available date for data analysis) through January 2021. A literature search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

On Facebook, as of January 2021, the group had a total of 25.590 members (87.6% male), most commonly (29%) between 35 and 44 years of age with over 100 countries were represented. As of January 2021, they had amassed 6457 followers on Twitter. During the last 28 d between December 2020 and January 2021, the account published 65 tweets that garnered a total of 196,900 impressions. Twelve articles were identified in our literature review on the use of social media within the neurosurgical community.

CONCLUSIONS

NC is one of the most widely utilized neurosurgical social media resources available. Sharing knowledge has been broadened thanks to the recent social media evolution, and NC has become a leading player in disseminating neurosurgical knowledge.

Trends in Academic Misrepresentation in Neurological Surgery Residency Applicants: A 2-Year Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Academic misrepresentation is not an unknown phenomenon, with recent reports in neurosurgery detecting a 45% misrepresentation rate in prospective neurosurgical residents. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of academic misrepresentation by prospective neurosurgical residents at a single institution across 2 distinct application cycles.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all Electronic Residency Application Service applications to 1 institution's neurosurgical residency program in the 2015 (n = 320) and 2020 (n = 355) application cycles. Reported academic works were verified through an extensive Web search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and the individual journal Web sites. Misrepresentation was defined in our study as listing work that does not exist, self-promotion to primary authorship, self-promotion (excluding primary authorship), incorrectly listing online-only publications, and listing non-peer-reviewed work as peer-reviewed.

RESULTS

In 2015, 253 (79.1%) applicants reported a total of 2097 citations and 305 (85.9%) applicants reported a total of 3018 citations in 2020 (P < 0.05). Median peer-reviewed articles per applicant rose significantly in 2020 (3.0 vs. 4.0, P < 0.001). Misrepresentation rates decreased dramatically in 2020 to 18.4% from a previously reported misrepresentation rate of 45% in 2012 (P < 0.0001). Increased United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 2 scores were associated with a decreased likelihood of misrepresentation (odds ratio = 0.97, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Misrepresentation rates within neurosurgical residency candidates have significantly decreased despite an increase in reported citations. A variety of steps including education, modifying reporting methods, and increased screening may help even further decrease misrepresentation.