The dark side of academic research

A new study found several senior academic surgeons had published papers in what used to be termed “predatory journals.” The newer, gentler term is “solicited publishing,” but it defines the same pay-to-play, low quality publications.

Surgeons from the University of California, San Diego examined 110 emails sent to the senior author from 29 publishers during a six-week period and early 2017. Nearly all were requesting manuscript submissions. The 29 publishers represented 113 different surgery journals most of which had existed for two years or less. Only 12 were indexed in PubMed, and of the 9 that mentioned a self-reported impact factor, the median was 0.24 which means they had less than one citation per article in the last two years. The median publication fee for the 88 journals posting the information was $755.

Emails from the publishers contained a mean of 9.6 grammatical errors, possibly because more than half had addresses in foreign countries, and of those with US addresses, 30% were residential.

More evidence that the manuscript peer review process is broken

To the surprise of almost no one, asking authors of research papers to submit names of potential peer reviewers for their manuscripts turns out to be a bad idea.

According to a recent New England Journal of Medicine article by Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, a number of research papers have been retracted because reviews were fabricated. Email addresses of suggested peer reviewers were not legitimate. The bogus email addresses were almost all created by authors of papers who then reviewed their own work favorably using fake identities. 

More about the problem can be found on the blog Retraction Watch.

This type of fraud is simple to do because anyone can set up an email address on Gmail or Yahoo mail using any name. Unless a reviewer has an academic email address, proving legitimacy is impossible.

However even if a reviewer has an “edu” address, how would an editor know that a suggested reviewer is not the author’s sister-in-law or a former mentor?

Every medical student who applies for residency knows that you don’t ask someone for a letter of recommendation unless you are sure that it will be favorable. Why would an author take a chance on recommending someone to review a paper without knowing that the review would be a good one?

I agree with the Dr. Haug that soliciting the names of possible reviewers from authors can save editors time and bother. Having spent three years as an associate journal editor, I have experienced the frustration of trying to find high quality reviewers or even a warm body of any quality to do the job.

I also agree with her that a root cause of this problem is the pressure on faculty to publish.

Another problem is that there are too many journals. In 2014, well over 5000 journals and 760,000 papers were included in Medline. The combination of “publish or perish” and superfluous journals leads to the proliferation of marginal papers.

The problem is not simply fake reviews. Since journal reviewers are not paid and have many other responsibilities, they may not thoroughly read papers or provide useful comments about manuscripts.

Some have suggested paying peer reviewers, but who would pay them? Certainly not publishers, even though they make tons of money. And paying might attract unqualified people looking to make a little extra cash.

What about post-publication peer review? It is already happening on blogs, on sites like PubPeer, and even on PubMed. However, the volume of papers published in medicine alone certainly precludes post-publication review of all of them.

Maybe it doesn’t matter. New journals are appearing every day. Most are “open access” and the charge authors “processing fees.” For many of these publications, processing fees do not include even a cursory manuscripts peer review.

With so many journals publishing just about anything for the right price, readers will have to do their own peer reviewing. Be skeptical my friends. 

Effects of acupuncture on pain and inflammation in pediatric appendicitis

A paper [full text here] from The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine says that "acupuncture may be a feasible and effective treatment modality for decreasing subjective pain and inflammation" in pediatric patients with appendicitis.

They studied six adolescents with appendicitis and administered acupuncture for pain control prior to surgery. Pain was assessed using three analog scales, and inflammation was measured using serial white blood cell (WBC) counts and C-reactive protein levels (CRP). CRP is a nonspecific indicator of inflammation in the body.

Figure 2 from the paper summarizes the results.

You can see that after 20 minutes of acupuncture, all three pain scores and WBCs declined. However, CRP continued to rise. Conspicuously absent from the figure and the text of the paper are any statistical analyses. This is due to the lack of a significant difference in any of these values because of the limited number of subjects studied.