Background Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved. Objective Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory. Methods Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited. Results A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Conclusions Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.
Purpose Guidelines call for routine reimaging of Grade 4-5 renal injuries at 48-72 h. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the clinical utility of computed tomography (CT) reimaging in high-grade renal injuries. Materials and methods We assembled data on 216 trauma patients with high-grade renal trauma at three level 1 trauma centers over a 19-year span between 1999 and 2017 in retrospectively collected trauma database. Demographic, radiographic, and clinical characteristics of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Results In total, 151 cases were Grade 4 renal injuries, and 65 were Grade 5 renal injuries. 53.6% (81) Grade 4 and 15.4% (10) Grade 5 renal injuries were initially managed conservatively. Of the 6 asymptomatic cases where repeat imaging resulted in intervention, 100% had collecting system injuries at initial imaging. Collecting system injuries were only present in 42.9% of cases where routine repeat imaging did not trigger surgical intervention. Collecting system injury at the time of initial imaging was a statistically significant predictor of routine repeat imaging triggering surgical intervention (p = 0.022). Trauma grade and the presence of vascular injury were not significant predictors of intervention after repeat imaging in asymptomatic patients. Conclusion In asymptomatic patients with high-grade renal trauma, the number needed to image is approximately one in eight (12.5%) to identify need for surgical intervention. There is potentially room to improve criteria for routine renal imaging in high-grade renal trauma based on the more predictive imaging finding of collecting system injury.
OBJECTIVE To describe the use of Lean in urology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General, a community safetynet and trauma hospital that serves as a major teaching site for the University of California San Francisco. METHODS We examined our process improvement activities from 2016 to 2018. Our Lean Daily Management System (DMS) includes a 15-minute team huddle ("urology Lean work") of service residents, faculty, clinic and operating room nursing staff, and anesthesia liaisons. Our DMS also includes a 5minute preoperative huddle. Besides team-building, urology Lean work surfaces logistics, safety or equipment improvement ideas, and ensures progress and completion of initiated projects. RESULTS Over a 2-year period we developed and completed 67 projects. Projects impacted the outpatient setting (57%), followed by the operating room (22%), the Urology service (12%), and inpatient setting (9%). We completed projects in the following domains: safety (26%), quality (22%), care experience (21%), workforce care and development (13%), equity (11%), and financial stewardship (7%). Urology Lean work reduced new patient clinic access time (119-21 days) and Bacillus Calmette-Gu erin in clinic treatment time (180-105 minutes). The average proportion of urology on-time surgeries was better than the overall surgery on-time surgeries (71% v 61%). CONCLUSION Urology Lean work successfully applied DMS in a service specific yet holistic approach. Urology Lean work improved resident engagement in quality and safety endeavors and served as a DMS model throughout perioperative and clinic areas. UROLOGY 140: 56−63, 2020.
Objective Web-based platforms have revolutionized the ability for researchers to perform global survey research. Methods to incentivize participation have been singularly focused on European and North American participants with varied results. With an ever increasing proportion of biomedical research being performed in non-western countries, assessment of novel methods to improve global survey response is timely and necessary. To that end, we created a three-arm nested randomized control trial (RCT) within a prospective cohort study to assess the impact of incentives on survey responsiveness in a global audience of biomedical researchers. Results Email invitations were sent to authors and editors involved in online publishing totaling 2426 participants from 111 countries. Overall we observed a 13.0% response rate: 13.3% for the control group, 14.4% for a group entered to win a gift card, and 11.1% for a group whose participation lead to donation to charity (p = 0.17). Year of publication nor country impacted response rate. Within subgroups, editors were significantly less likely to respond to the survey as compared to authors (6.5% vs. 18.9%; p-value < 0.01). With power to detect a 4.8% difference among groups, we could not detect an impact of incentives on global survey response.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.