[The FECYT seal of quality, a recognition and a stimulus for 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]

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.

Prevalence of Short Peer Reviews in 3 Leading General Medical Journals

Importance

High-quality peer reviews are often thought to be essential to ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process, but measuring peer review quality is challenging. Although imperfect, review word count could potentially serve as a simple, objective metric of review quality.

Objective

To determine the prevalence of very short peer reviews and how often they inform editorial decisions on research articles in 3 leading general medical journals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study compiled a data set of peer reviews from published, full-length original research articles from 3 general medical journals (The BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and BMC Medicine) between 2003 and 2022. Eligible articles were those with peer review data; all peer reviews used to make the first editorial decision (ie, accept vs revise and resubmit) were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Prevalence of very short reviews was the primary outcome, which was defined as a review of fewer than 200 words. In secondary analyses, thresholds of fewer than 100 words and fewer than 300 words were used. Results were disaggregated by journal and year. The proportion of articles for which the first editorial decision was made based on a set of peer reviews in which very short reviews constituted 100%, 50% or more, 33% or more, and 20% or more of the reviews was calculated.

Results

In this sample of 11 466 reviews (including 6086 in BMC Medicine, 3816 in The BMJ, and 1564 in PLOS Medicine) corresponding to 4038 published articles, the median (IQR) word count per review was 425 (253-575) words, and the mean (SD) word count was 520.0 (401.0) words. The overall prevalence of very short (<200 words) peer reviews was 1958 of 11 466 reviews (17.1%). Across the 3 journals, 843 of 4038 initial editorial decisions (20.9%) were based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews. The prevalence of very short reviews and share of editorial decisions based on review sets containing 50% or more very short reviews was highest for BMC Medicine (693 of 2585 editorial decisions [26.8%]) and lowest for The BMJ (76 of 1040 editorial decisions [7.3%]).

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study of 3 leading general medical journals, one-fifth of initial editorial decisions for published articles were likely based at least partially on reviews of such short length that they were unlikely to be of high quality. Future research could determine whether monitoring peer review length improves the quality of peer reviews and which interventions, such as incentives and norm-based interventions, may elicit more detailed reviews.

The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities

This Viewpoint examines the increase in “mega-journals” (prolific publishers of medical articles) and both the opportunities and threats to scientific research they present.

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

Epidemiology, methodological quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on coronavirus disease 2019: A cross-sectional study

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convenient accessibility and rapid publication of studies related to the ongoing pandemic prompted shorter preparation time for studies. Whether the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of published systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses are affected during the specific pandemic condition is yet to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, methodological quality, and reporting characteristics of published SRs/meta-analyses related to COVID-19.The Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to identify published SRs/meta-analyses related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study screening, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. The methodology quality of included SRs/meta-analyses was evaluated using revised version of a measurement tool to assess SRs, and the reporting characteristics were assessed based on the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses guidelines.A total of 47 SRs/meta-analyses were included with a low to critically low methodological quality. The median number of days from the date of literature retrieval to the date that the study was first available online was 21 days; due to the limited time, only 7 studies had study protocols, and the studies focused on a wide range of COVID-19 topics. The rate of compliance to the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses checklists of reporting characteristics ranged from 14.9% to 100%. The rate of compliance to the items of protocol and registration, detailed search strategy, and assessment of publication bias was less than 50%.SRs/meta-analyses on COVID-19 were poorly conducted and reported, and thus, need to be substantially improved.

Systematic review on the reporting accuracy of experimental details in publications using mouse femoral fracture models

The outcomes of animal experiments can be influenced by a variety of factors. Thus, precise reporting is necessary to provide reliable and reproducible data. Initiatives such as the ARRIVE guidelines have been enrolled during the last decade to provide a road map for sufficient reporting. To understand the sophisticated process of bone regeneration and to develop new therapeutic strategies, small rodents, especially mice, are frequently used in bone healing research. Since many factors might influence the results from those studies, we performed a systematic literature search from 2010 to 2019 to identify studies involving mouse femoral fracture models (stable fixation) and evaluated the reporting of general and model-specific experimental details. 254 pre-selected publications were systematically analyzed, showing a high reporting accuracy for the used mouse strain, the age or developmental stage and sex of mice as well as model-specific information on fixation methods and fracturing procedures. However, reporting was more often insufficient in terms of mouse substrains and genetic backgrounds of genetically modified mice, body weight, hygiene monitoring/immune status of the animal, anesthesia, and analgesia. Consistent and reliable reporting of experimental variables in mouse fracture surgeries will improve scientific quality, enhance animal welfare, and foster translation into the clinic.

Predicting the number of article citations on the topic of pemphigus vulgaris with the 100 top-cited articles since 2011: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a rare autoimmune blistering disease characterized by intraepithelial and mucocutaneous blister formation and erosion. Numerous articles related to PV have been published. However, which articles have a tremendous influence is still unknown, and factors affecting article citation numbers remain unclear. We aimed to visualize the prominent entities using the top 100 most-cited articles on the topic of PV (T100PV), and investigate whether medical subject headings (i.e., MeSH terms) can be used to predict article citations.

METHODS

By searching the PubMed Central (PMC) database, the T100PV abstracts since 2011 were downloaded. Citation analysis was performed to compare the dominant entities in article topics, authors, and research institutes using social network analysis (SNA) and Kano diagrams. We examined the MeSH prediction power against article citations using correlation coefficients (CCs).

RESULTS

The most cited article (125 times) was authored by Ellebrecht from the University of Pennsylvania in the US. The most productive countries were Germany (28%) and the US (25%). Most articles were published in J Invest Dermatol (16%) and Br J Dermatol (10%). Kasperkiewicz (Germany) and the Normandie University (France) were the most cited authors and research institutes, respectively. The most frequently occurred MeSH terms were administration and dosage, immunology, and metabolism. MeSH terms were evident in the prediction power on the number of article citations (F = 19.77; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A breakthrough was achieved by developing dashboards to display the T100PV. MeSH terms can be used to predict the T100PV citations. These T100PV visualizations can be applied in future studies.

Will Podcasting and Social Media Replace Journals and Traditional Science Communication? No, but

The digital world in which we live is changing rapidly. The evolving media environment is having a direct impact on traditional forms of communication and knowledge translation in public health and epidemiology. Openly accessible digital media can be used to reach a broader and more diverse audience of trainees, scientists, and the lay public than can traditional forms of scientific communication. The new digital landscape for delivering content is vast, and new platforms are continuously being added. In this article, we focus on several, including Twitter and podcasting, and discuss their relevance to epidemiology and science communication. We highlight 3 key reasons why we think epidemiologists should be engaging with these mediums: 1) science communication, 2) career advancement, and 3) development of a community and public service. Other positive and negative consequences of engaging in these forms of new media are also discussed. The authors of this commentary are all engaged in social media and podcasting for scientific communication, and we reflect on our experiences with these mediums as tools to advance the field of epidemiology.

Quality of Literature Searches Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence that the search strategies upon which systematic reviews (SRs) are based frequently contain errors are incompletely reported or insensitive.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of search strategies in the 10 leading specialty neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with superior searches.

METHODS

This research-on-research study systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/10/2017 and 31/10/2019. All SRs were eligible for assessment using a predefined coding manual that was adapted from the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The PubMed interface was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved search strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 633 articles were included and contained a median of 19.00 (2.00-1654.00) studies. Less than half (45.97%) of included search strategies were considered to be reproducible. Aggregated reporting score was positively associated with in-text reference to reporting guideline adherence (τb = 0.156, P < .01). The number of articles retrieved by a search (τb = 0.11, P < .01) was also associated with the reporting of a reproducible search strategy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the search strategies used in neurosurgical SRs require improvement. In addition to increasing awareness of reporting standards, we propose that this be achieved by the incorporation of PRISMA and other guidelines into article submission and peer-review processes. This may lead to the conduct of more informative SRs, which may result in improved clinician decision-making and patient outcomes.

Not lowering the bar, just providing a step stool

There have been a couple of times when we have reviewed papers that are essentially publishable as initially submitted; the "criticisms" were more along the lines of constructive suggestions that the authors might want to consider when they submitted a revised version of the paper, but those changes were not required. However, a much more common experience is for the authors to receive a series of comments from multiple reviewers. Most of those comments are critical for the authors to address, to ensure that the data in the paper are of sufficient quality and rigor, with adequate controls, to support the stated conclusions. That said, reviewers sometimes make requests, with the best of intentions, which might be reasonably considered as "beyond the scope of the present study". Thus, there needs to be a balance between addressing each and every comment of a review and completing a story even though there are additional avenues and questions that remain unexplored. Sometimes, even after a repeated round(s) of review, such questions linger and may impede acceptance of a worthy study.

Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively describe the quality of conduct, reporting, and publication integrity characteristics for all trials included in a large Cochrane review, comparing those published by presumed predatory publishers with those published by nonpredatory publishers.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.

STUDY SELECTION

Two hundred seventy-nine studies (25,704 participants) eligible for the recent update of the "Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain" Cochrane review were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study and manuscript characteristics, including predatory publication status and other quality and integrity characteristics were extracted along with treatment effect.

RESULTS

Nine percent of trials included were in presumed predatory publications; 12% in the period since 2010. We found frequency of other concerning characteristics to range from low (eg, plagiarism, 5%) to common (eg, lack of evidence of trial registration or protocol publication [75%]; insufficient sample size [84%]) in included studies. Studies published by presumed predatory publishers consistently had inferior conduct, reporting and publication integrity characteristics. Presumed predatory publication was associated with missing conflict of interest statement (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0-19.1), inadequate follow-up duration (OR 11.2, 95% CI 3.7-33.7), incomplete study methods (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.8-52.2) and baseline reporting (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6-11.7), and high risk of bias (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). All (100%) presumed predatory publications were missing trial registrations (vs. 72%) and had inadequate sample sizes (vs. 82%). Trials published in presumed predatory journals did not appear to have inflated effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Predatory publishers pose a distinct challenge to the consumption and synthesis of randomized controlled trials. More work is needed in other clinical areas to understand the potential impact of randomized controlled trials published in predatory publications, and as a result, the potential impact on evidence from systematic reviews that include these studies.

Mycopathologia 2020: Legacy and Change to Remain Relevant for Content, Creation, and Communication

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the publishing landscape. The 'pre-peer-review' publication model is likely to become common as a lag in publishing is not acceptable in a pandemic or other time! Mycopathologia is well placed to adopt such changes with its improved editorial processes, article formats, author engagements, and published articles' access and citation. Mycopathologia had an improved journal impact factor and article downloads in 2018-2019. A limited sampling suggested a slight decrease in the total submissions in 2019 (352 articles) compared to 2018 (371 articles). However, the acceptance rate improved to 30% in 2019 from 19% in 2018. Nearly half of all submissions in 2019 were rejected before peer-review or transferred to other Springer Nature journals. The published articles were contributed from 34 different countries, with authors from China, the USA, and Brazil among the top three contributors. An enhanced editorial oversight allowed peer-reviewers to focus on fewer articles that were well-matched to their expertise, which led to lower rejection rates post-peer-review. The introduction of MycopathologiaGENOME and MycopathologiaIMAGE article types received a good reception with notable downloads and citations.

Publisher's Note: Continued Publication of Current Issues in Molecular Biology by MDPI

Current Issues in Molecular Biology (ISSN 1467-3045) was launched in 1999 and has published international and multidisciplinary articles on all aspects of molecular biology spanning from basic mechanisms to applications in fields primarily, but not exclusively, relevant to microbiology and virology [...].

What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies

Journalists’ health and science reporting aid the public’s direct access to research through the inclusion of hyperlinks leading to original studies in peer-reviewed journals. While this effort supports the US-government mandate that research be made widely available, little is known about what research journalists share with the public. This cross-sectional exploratory study characterises US-government-funded research on cancer that appeared most frequently in news coverage and how that coverage varied by cancer type, disease incidence and mortality rates. The subject of analysis was 11436 research articles (published in 2016) on cancer funded by the US government and 642 news stories mentioning at least one of these articles. Based on Altmetric data, researchers identified articles via PubMed and characterised each based on the news media attention received online. Only 1.88% (n = 213) of research articles mentioning US government-funded cancer research included at least one mention in an online news publication. This is in contrast to previous research that found 16.8% (n = 1925) of articles received mention by online mass media publications. Of the 13 most common cancers in the US, 12 were the subject of at least one news mention; only urinary and bladder cancer received no mention. Traditional news sources included significantly more mentions of research on common cancers than digital native news sources. However, a general discrepancy exists between cancers prominent in news sources and those with the highest mortality rate. For instance, lung cancer accounted for the most deaths annually, while melanoma led to 56% less annual deaths; however, journalists cited research regarding these cancers nearly equally. Additionally, breast cancer received the greatest coverage per estimated annual death, while pancreatic cancer received the least coverage per death. Findings demonstrated a continued misalignment between prevalent cancers and cancers mentioned in online news media. Additionally, cancer control and prevention received less coverage from journalists than other cancer continuum stages, highlighting a continued underrepresentation of prevention-focused research. Results revealed a need for further scholarship regarding the role of journalists in research dissemination.

Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature

Retractions of COVID-19 literature in both preprints and the peer-reviewed literature serve as a reminder that there are still challenging issues underlying the integrity of the biomedical literature. The risks to academia become larger when such retractions take place in high-ranking biomedical journals. In some cases, retractions result from unreliable or nonexistent data, an issue that could easily be avoided by having open data policies, but there have also been retractions due to oversight in peer review and editorial verification. As COVID-19 continues to affect academics and societies around the world, failures in peer review might also constitute a public health risk. The effectiveness by which COVID-19 literature is corrected, including through retractions, depends on the stringency of measures in place to detect errors and to correct erroneous literature. It also relies on the stringent implementation of open data policies.

General medical publications during COVID-19 show increased dissemination despite lower validation

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has yielded an unprecedented quantity of new publications, contributing to an overwhelming quantity of information and leading to the rapid dissemination of less stringently validated information. Yet, a formal analysis of how the medical literature has changed during the pandemic is lacking. In this analysis, we aimed to quantify how scientific publications changed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric study of published studies in four high-impact medical journals to identify differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 related publications compared to non-pandemic studies. Original investigations related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 published in March and April 2020 were identified and compared to non-COVID-19 research publications over the same two-month period in 2019 and 2020. Extracted data included publication characteristics, study characteristics, author characteristics, and impact metrics. Our primary measure was principal component analysis (PCA) of publication characteristics and impact metrics across groups.

Results

We identified 402 publications that met inclusion criteria: 76 were related to COVID-19; 154 and 172 were non-COVID publications over the same period in 2020 and 2019, respectively. PCA utilizing the collected bibliometric data revealed segregation of the COVID-19 literature subset from both groups of non-COVID literature (2019 and 2020). COVID-19 publications were more likely to describe prospective observational (31.6%) or case series (41.8%) studies without industry funding as compared with non-COVID articles, which were represented primarily by randomized controlled trials (32.5% and 36.6% in the non-COVID literature from 2020 and 2019, respectively).

Conclusions

In this cross-sectional study of publications in four general medical journals, COVID-related articles were significantly different from non-COVID articles based on article characteristics and impact metrics. COVID-related studies were generally shorter articles reporting observational studies with less literature cited and fewer study sites, suggestive of more limited scientific support. They nevertheless had much higher dissemination.

Nature, content and shifts over time of the most impactful unruptured intracranial aneurysms articles: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has evolved significantly over the last few decades. Our objective was to evaluate the 100 most cited UIA articles by bibliometric analysis to identify nature, content and shifts over time.

METHODS

Elsevier's Scopus database was interrogated for the 100 most cited articles that focused on UIA. Older versus newer articles were compared, with categorical data analyzed using Pearson's Chi-square, and continuous data analyzed using Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited articles were published between 1975 and 2015, with the majority of these reporting patient clinical outcomes (n=69). There were 47/69 (68%) articles that described surgical intervention, with 38/47 (81%) and 18/47 (38%) including endovascular and open approaches, respectively . Publications peaked in 2004 (n=8), and the most common country of correspondence was the United States (n=59). Compared to older articles, newer articles had statistically higher citation rates (P<0.01), higher number of authors (P<0.01) with more multiple institution collaborations (P=0.01), greater disclosures of funding (P<0.01), more focus on endovascular treatments (P=0.04), in more journals with a clinical, non-surgical focus (P<0.01) published under open access policies (P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the 100 most cited articles about UIAs to date, there is a distinct shift towards more co-authored efforts utilizing multi-institutional efforts focused on endovascular approaches supported by funding. The emergence of endovascular techniques has refreshed the need for more contemporary rupture risk prediction models and natural history data to validate current attitudes towards clinical management after these minimally invasive procedures for UIAs.

Completeness of Intervention Reporting of Clinical Trials Published in Highly Ranked Obesity Journals

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a crucial role in the research and advancement of medical treatment. A cross-sectional study design was utilized to analyze the completeness of intervention reporting using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and to evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting. A comparison of the completeness of intervention reporting before and after the publication of TIDieR was sought.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for RCTs in the top 10 obesity journals per the Google h5-index. After excluding non-RCTs, 300 articles were randomly sampled. After assessing each publication for eligibility, two authors (SLR and DT) extracted data related to intervention reporting from records in an independent, masked fashion. Data were then verified and analyzed.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that the quality of intervention reporting is quite variable. Overall, no statistically significant difference in the quality of intervention reporting before and after the release of TIDieR guidelines was found. In general, obesity research has good intervention reporting in areas such as the mode of delivery, material lists for intervention, and procedure lists. However, four main areas in which obesity researchers can improve reporting quality were determined. These include providing the expertise and background of intervention providers and providing statements regarding the assessment of fidelity of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent intervention is warranted to improve the quality of research reporting in obesity research, which is a fundamental component of obesity management. This will likely require a unified approach from researchers, journals, and funding sources.

The 2021 Nucleic Acids Research database issue and the online molecular biology database collection

The 2021 Nucleic Acids Research database Issue contains 189 papers spanning a wide range of biological fields and investigation. It includes 89 papers reporting on new databases and 90 covering recent changes to resources previously published in the Issue. A further ten are updates on databases most recently published elsewhere. Seven new databases focus on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 and many others offer resources for studying the virus. Major returning nucleic acid databases include NONCODE, Rfam and RNAcentral. Protein family and domain databases include COG, Pfam, SMART and Panther. Protein structures are covered by RCSB PDB and dispersed proteins by PED and MobiDB. In metabolism and signalling, STRING, KEGG and WikiPathways are featured, along with returning KLIFS and new DKK and KinaseMD, all focused on kinases. IMG/M and IMG/VR update in the microbial and viral genome resources section, while human and model organism genomics resources include Flybase, Ensembl and UCSC Genome Browser. Cancer studies are covered by updates from canSAR and PINA, as well as newcomers CNCdatabase and Oncovar for cancer drivers. Plant comparative genomics is catered for by updates from Gramene and GreenPhylDB. The entire Database Issue is freely available online on the Nucleic Acids Research website (https://academic.oup.com/nar). The NAR online Molecular Biology Database Collection has been substantially updated, revisiting nearly 1000 entries, adding 90 new resources and eliminating 86 obsolete databases, bringing the current total to 1641 databases. It is available at https://www.oxfordjournals.org/nar/database/c/.

The Structure of Research Questions in Randomized Controlled Trials in the Rehabilitation Field: A Methodological Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to assess whether and how the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes) format is described to frame research questions in randomized controlled trials looking at effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions.

DESIGN

A methodological study was conducted. Randomized controlled trials in the rehabilitation field, published between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, were included. The framing of the primary research question from each trial was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 97 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The most frequent framing of the primary research question was as an "objective" statement (55%), and in 33% of the articles, this was stated as an "objective" together with a "hypothesis" description. All PICO elements were present in 55% of research questions, but only 49% have used the statement suggested by Cochrane.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that a specific item about the "research question" and the rationale that drove the proposed design following the form suggested by Cochrane should be included in the RCT Rehabilitation Checklist.

Predatory Publishing in Ophthalmology: A Call for Awareness and Action

PURPOSE

To describe the phenomenon of predatory publishing, its impact on the field of ophthalmology, and specific characteristics associated with predatory journals for authors to review prior to selecting a journal for submission of scientific work.

DESIGN

Descriptive editorial article.

METHODS

Literature review of currently published literature regarding the topic.

RESULTS

Predatory publishing has had a significant impact on the quality of literature in the scientific world, on funding opportunities across countries and institutions, and on individual physician and scientist careers. There are a significant number of predatory journals in ophthalmology, but fewer than in other specialties.

CONCLUSION

We must raise awareness about the existence of predatory publishing within ophthalmology, and must individually act to limit contributing to its growth by critically appraising each publisher and journal prior to submitting our scientific work.

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

BACKGROUND

Scientific research can offer the joy of discovery. For many graduating neurosurgeons, often, a seminar, class, or instructional module is their first and only formal exposure to the world of conducting research responsibly, to write down and report the results of such research. The pressure to publish scientific research is high, but any young neurosurgeon who is unaware of how predatory publishers operate can get duped by it and can lose their valuable and hard-fought research. Hence, we have attempted to provide an overview of all potentially predatory neurosurgery publications and provide some "red flags" to recognize them.

METHODS

A suspected list of predatory publications was collected via a thorough review of the Neurosurgery journals listed in 4 major so-called blacklists, i.e., Beall's list, Manca's list, Cabell's blacklist, and Strinzel blacklist and then cross-referenced with UGC CARE whitelist to remove any potential legitimate journals. All journals with a scope of the Neurosurgery publication were searched using terms in the search bar: "Neurosurgery", "Neuroanatomy", "Neuropathology", and "Neurological disorder/disease". Since all predatory journals claim to be open access, all possible types of open access journals on Scimago were also searched, and thus a comparison was possible in terms of publication cost and number of legitimate open access journals when compared with predatory ones. In addition, methodologies by which these journals penetrate legitimate indexes like PubMed was investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 46 predatory journals were found and were enlisted along with their publishers and web addresses. Sixty of the 360 Neurosurgery journals listed on Scimago were open access and the fee for the predatory journals was substantially lower (< $150) when compared with legitimate journals ($900-$3000). Six types of open access types exist while a total of 26 red flags in 7 stages of publication can be found in predatory journals. These journals have penetrated indexes by having similar names to legitimate journals and by publishing articles with external funding which mandate their indexing.

CONCLUSION

These 46 journals were defined as predatory by 4 major blacklists, and none of them was found in the UGC Care white list. They also fulfill the 26 red-flags that define a predatory journal. The blacklist detailed here may become redundant; hence "whenever in doubt" regarding a journal with "red-flags", the authors are advised to refer to whitelists to be on the safer side. Publishing in predatory journals leads to not only loss of valuable research but also discredits a researcher among his peers and can be hindrance in career progression. Some journals are even indexed on PubMed, and they have sophisticated webpages and high-quality online presentations.

Background styles in systematic review articles are not related to the publication in high-impact-factor journals: A meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

To clarify the styles used in background sections of systematic reviews (SR) and to identify which styles if any were related to the publication in high-impact-factor (HIF) medical journals.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional study for original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018. We randomly included 90 articles from top 10 HIF journals and 90 from others, respectively. We conducted a content analysis to classify the background styles. We assessed the factors associated with the publication in HIF journals.

RESULTS

We found 6 categories. We defined 6 categories as follows: Update of prior SR, New in scope than prior SR, Higher quality than prior SR, Completely new SR, Limitations of primary studies only, and Not presenting unknown in prior SR or primary studies. All 6 categories were not related to the publication in HIF journals.

CONCLUSIONS

We found 6 categories of styles in background sections of SR, none of which however were related to publication in HIF journals. SR authors may wish to use any of these categories to communicate the importance of their research questions.

Race, ethnicity, and racism in the nutrition literature: an update for 2020

Social disparities in the US and elsewhere have been terribly highlighted by the current COVID-19 pandemic but also an outbreak of state-sponsored violence. The field of nutrition, like other areas of science, has commonly used 'race' to describe research participants and populations, without the recognition that race is a social, not a biologic, construct. We review the limitations of classifying participants by race, and recommend a series of steps for authors, researchers and policymakers to consider when producing and reading the nutrition literature. We recommend that biomedical researchers, especially those in the field of nutrition, abandon the use of racial categories to explain biologic phenomena but instead rely on a more comprehensive framework of ethnicity; that authors consider not just race and ethnicity but many social determinants of health, including experienced racism; that race and ethnicity not be conflated; that dietary pattern descriptions inform ethnicity descriptions; and that depersonalizating language be avoided.