No abstract

No abstract

Background Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence—systematic reviews—through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall’s List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review’s inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. Results Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. Conclusions Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

No abstract

Background:If it was possible to assay biomarkers of neuroplasticity it might facilitate clinical management of deaf implanted children by identifying those among them who are at risk of speech and language rehabilitation failure. MMP9 is a proteinase involved in neuroplasticity underlying different clinical conditions in human. Material and methods:This was a longitudinal, prospective cohort study of 61 congenitally deaf children who underwent cochlear implantation. We investigated the genetic variants of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9) and plasma levels of MMP-9 that have been implicated in neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Auditory development was assessed by using the LittlEARS Questionnaire (LEAQ) at three followup points and the plasma level of MMP-9 was measured at implantation. Results:There was a significant negative correlation between MMP-9 plasma level at implantation and LEAQ score at 18 months follow-up (p < 0.05). Two clusters of good and poor CI performers could be isolated based on this correlation. The prevalence of genetic variants of MMP9 -rs3918242, rs20544, and rs2234681 -in the good performers cluster was different to their prevalence in the poor performers cluster. Conclusions:The study showed that children born deaf who have an MMP-9 plasma level of less than 150 ng/ml at cochlear implantation have a reasonable chance of attaining a high LEAQ score after 18 months of speech and language rehabilitation. It appears that MMP-9 plasma level at cochlear implantation is a promising prognostic marker for CI outcome.