What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped. Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors. Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal

A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.MethodsTwenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating.ResultsTwenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts.ConclusionIn this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review [version 2; referees: 2 approved, 1 not approved]

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal

A protocol for a network meta-analysis of interventions to treat patients with sudden sensorineural hearing loss

Abstract Background Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, with greater than 20% of Canadian adults having measurable hearing loss in at least one ear. Patients with hearing loss experience impaired quality of life, and emotional and financial consequences that affect themselves and their families. Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is a common but difficult to treat form of hearing loss that has a sudden onset of ≤ 72 h associated with various etiologies, with the majority of cases being idiopathic. Some patients may partially or completely recover hearing ability, but for 32 to 65% of patients whose hearing does not recover, feelings of social isolation elevate the risk of anxiety and depression. Hearing loss is also associated with poorer functional status, including difficulty with sound localization and hearing in noise. There exists a wide range of therapeutic options; however, treatment of idiopathic SSNHL is controversial because some patients recover spontaneously. The planned systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) will assess the relative effects of competing treatments for management of idiopathic SSNHL in adults. Methods Electronic search strategies were developed by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with no date or language restrictions. Key clinical trial registries will also be searched for in-progress and completed trials. Two reviewers will independently screen the literature using pre-specified eligibility criteria, and assess the quality of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or third party adjudication. Bayesian NMAs will be pursued to compare interventions in terms of their effects on hearing (including audiometric thresholds and speech recognition scores), extent of hearing recovery, quality of life, and incidence of harms (including vestibular dysfunction, incidence of infections, and withdrawals due to adverse events). Discussion This systematic review and NMA will offer new and informative evaluations of current therapies for SSNHL. The results will inform clinicians as to the relative benefits of the currently available interventions for managing this difficult condition, provide optimal clinical treatment strategies, establish evidence gaps, and identify promising treatments for evaluation in future trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD 42017073756

Pharmacologic and surgical therapies for patients with Meniere's disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BackgroundMeniere's disease (MD) is a chronic condition of the inner ear consisting of symptoms that include vertigo attacks, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. Despite availability of various interventions, there is uncertainty surrounding their relative efficacy, thus making it difficult to select the appropriate treatments for MD. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the relative effects of the available pharmacologic and surgical interventions in patients with MD with regard to vertigo and other key patient outcomes based on data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).MethodsOur published protocol registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019119129) provides details on eligibility criteria and methods. We searched various databases including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 10th, 2018. Screening at citation and full-text levels and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed for hearing change and vertigo control outcomes, along with pairwise meta-analyses for these and additional outcomes.ResultsWe identified 2,889 unique citations, that yielded 23 relevant publications describing 18 unique RCTs (n = 1,231 patients). Overall, risk-of bias appraisal suggested the evidence base to be at unclear or high risk of bias. Amongst pharmacologics, we constructed treatment networks of five intervention groups that included placebo, intratympanic (IT) gentamicin, oral high-dose betahistine, IT steroid and IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine for NMAs of hearing change (improvement or deterioration) and complete vertigo control. IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine was associated with the largest difference in hearing improvement compared to placebo, followed by high-dose betahistine and IT steroid (though 95% credible intervals failed to rule out the possibility of no difference), while IT gentamicin was worse than IT steroid. The NMA of complete vertigo control suggested IT gentamicin was associated with the highest probability of achieving better complete vertigo control compared to placebo, followed by IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine. Only two studies related to surgical interventions were found, and data suggested no statistically significant difference in hearing changes between endolymphatic duct blockage (EDB) versus endolymphatic sac decompression (ESD), and ESD with or without steroid injection. One trial reported that 96.5% of patients in EDB group compared to 37.5% of the patients in ESD group achieved complete vertigo control 24 months after surgery (p = 0.002).ConclusionTo achieve both hearing preservation and vertigo control, the best treatment option among the pharmacologic interventions compared may be IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine, considering that IT gentamicin may have good performance to control vertigo but may be detrimental to hearing preservation with high cumulative dosage and short interval between injections. However, IT steroid plus high-dose betahistine has not been compared in head-to-head trials against other interventions except for IT steroid alone in one trial, thus future trials that compare it with other interventions will help establish comparative effectiveness with direct evidence

Pharmacologic and surgical therapies for patients with Meniere’s disease: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability in Canada and worldwide, with more than one million Canadians enduring a hearing-related disability. Meniere’s disease (MD) is a chronic condition of the inner ear, manifesting as a triad of disabling symptoms, including attacks of vertigo, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and tinnitus. Impacts on quality of life are severe, particularly with respect to restrictions in social participation and physical activity, fatigue, and reduced capacity to work. Anxiety and other psychological disorders may result from the restrictions imposed on life, the constant uncertainty of vertigo attacks, and fluctuating SNHL, with neuroses and depression affecting 40 to 60% of sufferers of intractable MD. There is a need to establish the benefits of previously studied interventions with greater certainty. The planned systematic review and meta-analyses/network meta-analyses (NMAs) will assess the relative effects of competing pharmacologic and surgical interventions for management of MD in adults. Methods An experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team will develop the electronic search strategies. We will search various databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library with no date or language restrictions for published literature, and key clinical trial registries for in-progress and completed trials. Screening of the literature will be performed by two reviewers independently using pre-specified eligibility criteria, and quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We will resolve disagreements through consensus or third-party adjudication. When applicable, meta-analyses and NMAs will be pursued to compare interventions in terms of their effects on outcomes, including frequency and severity of vertigo, occurrence and intensity of tinnitus, changes in hearing and speech recognition, quality of life, and harms. Separate analyses exploring the effects of pharmacologic and surgical approaches will be performed. Discussion Our planned systematic review will provide informative evaluations of existing treatments for management of Meniere’s disease. The findings will inform practitioners as to the relative benefits and harms of the existing competing interventions for MD, offer optimal clinical treatment strategies, identify evidence gaps, and determine promising therapies for evaluation in future trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201911912

A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions

Abstract Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions. Methods An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review. Results A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1–4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias. Conclusion The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. Systematic review registration https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/3565

Stress testing journals: a quasi-experimental study of rejection rates of a previously published paper

Abstract Background When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review. Methods We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher’s PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types. Results We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)). Conclusion Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing pharmacologic therapies in patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss.

BACKGROUND:Hearing loss is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Patients with hearing loss experience impaired quality of life, as well as emotional and financial consequences that affect both themselves and their families. Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a common but difficult to treat condition that has a sudden onset of ≤ 72 hour associated with various etiologies, with the majority of cases being idiopathic. There exists a wide range of therapeutic options, however, the uncertainty surrounding their comparative efficacy and safety makes selection of treatment difficult. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative effects of competing treatments for management of ISSNHL. METHODS:A protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017073756). A detailed search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 8th, 2018 was carried out by an experienced information specialist. Grey literature was also searched. Screening full-text records, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through consensus or third party adjudication, while data was collected by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed to inform comparisons between interventions for a priori specified outcomes that included pure tone average (PTA) improvement and hearing recovery. RESULTS:The search identified a total of 1,138 citations, of which 613 remained for review after removal of duplicates. Of these, 23 publications describing 19 unique studies (total sample size of 1,527) met our a priori eligibility criteria, that were assessed to be at unclear or high risk of bias on several domains. We identified data on several interventions for ISSNHL therapy and were able to construct treatment networks consisting of six intervention groups that included placebo; intratympanic (IT) steroid; IT plus systemic steroid; per oral (PO) steroid; intravenous (IV) steroid; and IV plus PO steroid for our NMAs. IT plus systemic steroids demonstrated the largest difference in PTA improvement compared to placebo (25.85 dB, 95% CrI 7.18-40.58), followed by IV plus PO steroids (22.06 dB, 95% CrI 1.24-39.17), IT steroids (18.24 dB, 95% CrI 3.00-29.81). We observed that the difference of PTA improvement between each intervention and placebo diminished over time, attributed to spontaneous recovery. The binary outcomes of hearing recovery demonstrated similar relative ordering of interventions but were less sensitive than PTA improvement to capture the significant differences between interventions and placebo. CONCLUSION:Unclear to high risk of bias trials rated IT plus systemic steroid treatment as the best among the six interventions compared, and all active treatments were better than placebo in improving PTA. However, it should be noted that certain comparisons were based on indirect evidence only or few studies of small sample size, and analyses were unable to control for steroid type and dosage. Given these limitations, further data originating from methodologically sound and rigorous trials with adequate reporting are needed to confirm our findings