Academic spam mails from “Predatory Journals” in cardiology: a cross-sectional study over 3 months

Background

Numerous online journals are referred to as predatory journals because their efforts are focused primarily on collecting publication fees rather than on content, peer review, or manuscript presentation. Many of these journals send Academic Spam Mails (ASM), requesting manuscript submissions.

Purpose/Methods

Over a 3-month period, all ASMs addressed to the author were collected and analyzed. A fake publication was created with a commonly used structure (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion). The article just repeated the phrase “Please get me off your mailing list” over and over again. This publication was submitted in response to each request to test the control mechanisms of the respective journals.

Results

During the study period, excluding duplicate requests, 125 ASMs (average 2.1 per business day) were received from a wide variety of journals spanning 38 different subject areas, of which 29/38 (76.4%) were from the medical field. 16/125 (16%) were related to a previously published article but not among the author's most important publications (median h-index rank 22; range 10–138). The majority (73.6%) of journals were listed in Beall's predatory journal list, only an absolute minority (0.8%) were listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, and 96% were not listed in PubMed. Original papers (94.4%), reviews (88.0%), and case reports (87.2%) were most frequently requested; the publication charge (APC) was a median of $1,199 (range $50–3,586); in about 22% of cases, it was not apparent whether APCs were charged and, if so, how much. For the 125 nonsense publications sent out, there was a response in 16/125 (13%) (6 acknowledgements of receipt, 3 apologies, 2 the journal comments that the publication consisted of only one sentence, and 5 other responses). Interestingly, in one case editorial board members had also created a nonsense publication titled: “Ok we not send mail to you” and sent it to the author. 21.6% of the journals had sent ASM to the author again during the next months.

Conclusions

Academic spam mails from “predatory” online journals are a common problem. They are recognizable by their appearance in warning lists or non-appearance in directories of reputable open access journals. A placement of a nonsense publication in such a “predatory journal” was not successful.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) using MitraClip in patients younger than 65 years: a multicenter analysis of 2-years outcomes

Background

TMVR using MitraClip became a well-established interventional therapy for severe MR. However, TMVR has been almost only applied to old aged patients rejected from surgical therapy.

Objective

To present 2-years outcomes of 36 patients younger than 65 years with no surgical options treated by TMVR.

Methods

A retrospective clinical and TEE study was conducted to evaluate 36 patients younger than 65 years treated by TMVR in 3 heart centers.

Results

Mean age of the 36 study patients was 56.3±6.6 years, male gender was 72.2%. High operative risk was estimated by STS score (mean = 8.73±2.97) and EuroSCORE (mean = 24.71±12.79). All patients were refused for surgery by heart team decision, therefore admitted to TMVR. Baseline severity of MR was assessed by 3D-TEE based biplane vena contracta width (mean = 8.35±1.87 mm). Baseline transmitral mean pressure gradient was 1.81±0.78 mmHg. 21 patients showed mitral annular dilatation as the main cause of MR, 8 patients had leaflet prolapse, 4 patients exhibited papillary muscle displacement leading to leaflet tethering and 3 patients showed mitral leaflet thickening and/or retraction due to fibrosis. Procedural success was achieved in all patients with 1/2/3 clips implanted in 52.8%/44.4%/2.8% of cases with a mean of 1.5 clip per case. Two grades or more reduction in severity of MR (MR grade ≤ II/IV) was accomplished in 88.9% of patients. Mean postprocedural MPG was 3.78±1.96 mmHg. Average follow-up (FU) period was 25,8 months and the median was 20 months (25th–75th percentile: 12–36 months). During 2-years FU, statistically significant difference (p value <0.002) was detected for NT-proBNP levels compared to baseline (mean = 9870±10819, median = 7748, 25th–75th percentile: 2702–14237 pg/ml) and at follow up visits (mean = 7645±11292, median = 3263, 25th-75th percentile: 883–8078 pg/ml). Furthermore, persistent symptomatic improvement during FU, defined as NYHA functional class improvement by 2 or more Grades, was achieved in 69% of patient in parallel with efficient reduction of MR in 34 patients so that a second intervention by reclipping was required in 2 patients to correct recurrent significant MR. Only two patients experienced procedure-related complications by large puncture site hematoma. No procedure-related mortality during the first 30 days was detected. However, mortality was recorded in 2 patients during the first month and was attributed to severe advanced heart failure in one case and septicemia after exclusion of infective endocarditis in another case. Over 2 years FU, other 5 patients passed away, 3 cases owing to advanced heart failure, one case due to multi-organ failure and one because of tumor disease.

Conclusion

TMVR in patients younger than 65 years refused from surgical repair provides satisfactory clinical and echocardiography outcomes at 2 years. Future studies should evaluate the outcomes of MitraClip in this population in a larger cohort.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Hassan M.H. Mohammed received a scholarship grant from the Egyptian ministry of higher education and Minia University, Egypt.