scholarly journals A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements

2021 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jaime Α. Teixeira da Silva

The mainstream publishing establishment is under attack from multiple known and unknown forces. This is neither hyperbole nor fantasy. Many academics may believe that the main threat lies with “predatory” journals or publishers, but this is not necessarily the case because such entities are not always easy to distinguish clearly from veritable scholarly journals or publishers. Moreover, there is a gray zone that may involve both predatory and exploitative qualities. Current submission systems are not fail-safe because they allow unscholarly or fraudulent elements to register and abuse them, for example for submitting fake research or falsified peer reports, while author identification tools like ORCID are imperfect and provide a platform for similar-minded individuals to “validate” themselves. This toxic mix of tools aimed at fortifying integrity, while allowing fake authors to breed, currently without many, or any, ethical or legal repercussions will rapidly erode the entire publishing landscape if serious legal action is not taken. The creation of fake papers by fake authors will eventually trickle down into valid literature, by virtue of the fact that cited literature cannot be thoroughly vetted, even in peer review. The integrity of valid scholarly venues is thus at high risk unless suitable, strict and ethically and legally enforceable preventative measures are implemented.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Wolff ◽  
Hannah L. Bowser

AbstractAging, geriatrics, gerontology, and related areas are important areas of research as the population of older people increases in relationship to the total population. Researchers in these fields would benefit from guidance regarding sources for publishing and finding relevant scholarly journals and articles. Multiple database sites of journals were searched to provide a list of relevant publications. This list was expanded via perusal of published citation lists and searches in general search engines. A total of 243 journals were identified and examined. Of those journals, 198 journals are currently publishing and 45 journals have ceased publication. In terms of publication medium, 39% of the currently publishing journals are online-only, 4% are print-only and 59% of the journals publish both online and in print. Journals with aging in the title represent 36%, geriatrics 30% and gerontology 23%. Less than 10% have been identified as predatory journals. An expected increase in journals in the broad field of aging is indicated by the 49% of listed titles beginning in 2000 or later. This recent increase in available journals provides a need for the information listed in this paper.


Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.


Author(s):  
Akshay Jatin Patel ◽  
Saifullah Mohamed ◽  
Edward Joseph Caruana ◽  
Babu Naidu

AbstractThe demands of curtailing the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic have disrupted the world’s ability to care for patients with thoracic pathologies. Those who undergo thoracic surgical therapeutic procedures are a high-risk category, likely to have impaired lung function but also high risk for exposing clinical teams to aerosolised viral loads. In light of this global pandemic, thorough pre-procedural planning, adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), experienced personnel and judicious anaesthetic and intra-operative measures will serve to be instrumental in ensuring positive patient outcomes whilst still protecting the safety of healthcare workers.


Author(s):  
Anja Schoeps ◽  
Dietmar Hoffmann ◽  
Claudia Tamm ◽  
Bianca Vollmer ◽  
Sabine Haag ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThe lack of precise estimates on transmission risk hampers rational decisions on closure of educational institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsSecondary attack rates (SARs) for schools and day-care centres were calculated using data from state-wide mandatory notification of SARS-CoV-2 index cases in educational institutions and information on routine contact tracing and PCR-testing.FindingsFrom August to December 2020, every sixth of overall 784 independent index cases caused a transmission in educational institutions (risk 0·17, 95% CI 0·14–0·19). In a subgroup, monitoring of 14,594 institutional high-risk contacts (89% PCR-tested) of 441 index cases revealed 196 secondary cases (SAR 1·34%, 1·16–1·54). Transmission was more likely from teachers than from students/children (incidence risk ratio [IRR] 3·17, 1·79–5·59), and from index cases in day-care centres (IRR 3·23, 1·76–5·91) than from those in secondary schools. In 748 index cases, teachers caused four times more secondary cases than children (1·08 vs. 0·25 secondary cases per index, IRR 4·39, 2·67–7·21). This difference was mainly due to a large number of teacher-to-teacher transmissions in day-care centres (mean number of secondary cases 0.66) and a very low number of student/child-to-teacher transmissions in schools (mean number of secondary cases 0.004).InterpretationIn educational institutions, the risk of infection for contacts to a confirmed COVID-19 case is one percent, but varies depending on type of institution and index case. Hygiene measures and vaccination targeting the day-care setting and teacher-to-teacher transmission are priorities in reducing the burden of infection and may promote educational justice during the pandemic.FundingNo particular funding was received for this study.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed on Jan 27, 2021, without any language restrictions for all articles in which the title or abstract contained the search terms “COVID 19” or “corona”, and “school”, “education*”, or “daycare”, and “transmission”, and “risk”, “attack rate”, or “SAR”, and screened 175 results for original research or reviews on COVID-19 transmission risk in the educational setting. Following a similar strategy, we also searched Google Scholar, SSRN, medRxiv, and the reference lists of identified literature. We found five cohort studies on transmission risk looking at overall 171 index cases and their 6,910 contact persons in Australian, Italian, Irish, Singaporean, and German schools and reporting attack rates between 0% and 3% percent. These five studies were conducted before October 2020 and thus looked at COVID-19 transmission risk in schools before the second wave in Europe.A number of modelling studies from the first wave of COVID-19 provide inconclusive guidance to policy makers. While two publications, one from several countries and one from Switzerland, concluded that school closures contributed markedly to the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and individual mobility, two other studies, one using cross-country data and one from Japan rated school closures among the least effective measures to reduce COVID-19 incidence rates.Added value of this studyBased on a large data set that emerged from the current public health practice in Germany, which incorporates routine PCR-testing during active follow-up of asymptomatic high-risk contacts to index cases, this study provides a precise estimate of the true underlying SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk in schools and day-care centres. Its analysis also allows for a meaningful examination of differences in the risk of transmission with respect to the characteristics of the index case. We found that the individual risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 among high-risk contacts in the educational setting is 1.3%, but that this risk rises to 3.2% when the index case is a teacher and to 2.5% when the index case occurs in a day-care centre. Furthermore, we could show that, on average, teacher index cases produced about four times as many secondary cases as student/child index cases. Despite the relatively small proportion of teachers among index cases (20%), our study of transmission pathways revealed that the majority of all secondary cases (54%), and the overwhelming majority of secondary cases in teachers (78%) were caused by teacher index cases. Of note, most cases of teacher-to-teacher transmission (85%) occurred in day-care centres.Implications of all the available evidenceIn this setting, where preventative measures are in place and COVID-19 incidence rates were rising sharply in the population, we found a low and stable transmission risk in educational institutions over time, which provides evidence for the effectiveness of current preventative measures to control the spread of COVID-19 in schools. The identification of a substantial teacher-to-teacher transmission risk in day-care, but a clearly mitigated child/student–to-teacher transmission risk in schools, indicates the need to shift the focus to hygiene among day-care teachers, including infection prevention during staff-meetings and in break rooms. These findings also strongly support the re-prioritization of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 to educational staff in day-care.


Author(s):  
Mario Pagliaro

Scholarly journals today are the products of a large industry comprised of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, whose annual income exceeds $25 billion. Originally created for facilitating scientific communication, the World Wide Web in principle makes scientific journals no longer necessary. Yet, in an almost opposite fashion to what happened in retail publishing, the academic publishing industry has further flourished following the advent of the internet. Education of today’s students and young researchers, we argue in this study, is the key enabler for the transition to open science.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 93-94
Author(s):  
R A MacMillan ◽  
T Ponich

Abstract Background Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), the most common complication of ERCP, can lead to significant patient morbidity and even mortality. Both American (ASGE) and European (ESGE) guidelines emphasize the importance of assessing PEP risk among patients about to undergo ERCP so appropriate preventative measures can be initiated. Though multiple PEP risk factors have been identified, an ideal risk assessment tool has not yet been developed that accurately predicts PEP risk among ERCP patients. An ideal PEP risk factor screening tool would be one that most sensitively identifies patients likely to benefit from PEP preventative measures. We have developed a patient PEP risk screening tool based on both ASGE and ESGE guidelines (Table 1) and analyzed its accuracy predicting PEP rates in our clinical practice. Aims We investigated whether the ERCP patient and procedural risk factors listed in the ASGE and ESGE guidelines were linked to PEP rates using a novel PEP risk screening tool in patients undergoing ERCP. Methods Retrospective chart reviews of patients undergoing ERCP were performed within a single clinician’s practice at the London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, between January 2016 and October 2019 to: 1) assess the proportion of patients identified as high PEP risk using our novel PEP risk screening tool; 2) determine whether a high PEP risk score using this tool was linked to higher PEP rates following ERCP; and 3) identify the absolute score threshold that best delineates patients at higher risk. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relationship between high PEP risk identified via screening and the actual PEP rate following ERCP. Results Five hundred sixty-one patients who underwent ERCP were assessed using the new PEP risk screening tool. Among those patients, 6.6% (37/561) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. Using the screening tool, 79.5% (446/561) were identified as high risk, using a cut-off score of 1; the score with the highest sensitivity (95%) and specificity (22%) combination. Identifying high PEP risk patients at this cut-off was significantly linked to increased PEP rates in patients who underwent ERCP (X2 = 5.5; df = 1, p < .05). Conclusions Using a cut-off score of 1, the PEP risk screening tool was very sensitive, but relatively non-specific at identifying patients who went on to develop post-ERCP pancreatitis. We hope that, based on these findings, high-risk patient identification can be improved, so more aggressive and appropriately-targeted prophylactic measures against PEP can be provided. Funding Agencies None


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan M. Allen

PurposeThe academic community has warned that predatory journals may attempt to capitalize on the confusion caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to further publish low quality academic work, eroding the credibility of scholarly publishing.Design/methodology/approachThis article first chronicles the risks of predatory publishing, especially related to misinformation surrounding health research. Next, the author offers an empirical investigation of how predatory publishing has engaged with COVID-19, with an emphasis on journals related to virology, immunology and epidemiology as identified through Cabells' Predatory Reports, through a content analysis of publishers' websites and a comparison to a sample from DOAJ.FindingsThe empirical findings show that there were 162 titles related to these critical areas from journals listed on Cabells with a range of infractions, but most were defunct and only 39 had published on the pandemic. Compared to a DOAJ comparison group, the predatory journal websites were less likely to mention slowdowns to the peer review process related to the pandemic. Furthermore, another 284 predatory journals with COVID-19 engagement were uncovered from the initial exploration. These uncovered journals mostly centered on medical or biological science fields, while 42 titles came from other broader fields in social science, other STEM or humanities.Originality/valueThis study does not prove that predatory publications have released misinformation pertaining to COVID-19, but rather it exemplifies the potential within a complex academic publishing space. As these outlets have proven to be vectors of misleading science, libraries and the broader educational community need to stay vigilant as information intermediaries of online research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document