Search

Research and scientific papers are measured, compared, and frequently ranked using journal metrics. They may also be referred to as journal rankings, journal relevance, or journal impact. Journal metrics allow academics and researchers to compare scholarly publications. The most prestigious ones are the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) based on Web of Science data, and CiteScore and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) based on Scopus data. As we all know, the availability of these metrics for a journal is associated with its indexing in these bibliographic databases, such as the Web of Science Core Collection or Scopus, and is a proxy to determining the quality of the journal. The number of open access journals is growing rapidly. According to a report by the University of Regensburg Library, there were more than 60,000 open access journals worldwide in 2018 (EBZ 2018). While open access has brought many benefits to academic publishing, it has also introduced us to many low-quality (Non-indexed) journals, as well as predatory journals and publishers. Thousands of journals therefore compete for manuscripts from researchers/authors. It is clear how difficult it is for new and low-quality journals to receive manuscripts in this competitive environment. Naturally, authors do not want to submit their research to journals that are not indexed or have no metrics. Recently, in some countries, publishing in predatory journals has even become a barrier to academic promotion (Koçak 2012).

Background: Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not compliant with the CONSORT checklist as much as they should.Objective: To assess the quality, in terms of the level to which they are compliant with the CONSORT checklist, of abstracts of RCTs published in general medical journals in the Balkan region.Methods: Two observers assessed the abstracts of RCTs published in five general medical journals of the Balkan region between 2012 and 2018 to determine the level to which the abstracts were compliant with the 16-item CONSORT abstracts checklist.Results: Of the 183 studies that were identified for evaluation, 124 (67.8%) were excluded from the evaluation. The average compliance level was 44.5% (95% CI: 41.9%–47.1%), the lowest being that for randomization (1.7%), funding (1.7%),numbers analysed (11.0%), blinding (13.6%), and trial registration (18.6%). However, the compliance level was very high for conclusions (99.2%), objectives (96.6%), interventions (95.8%), and primary outcomes (83.9%). The length of the abstract (word count) and the level of compliance were positively correlated (rs = 0.43; p = 0.001). Abstracts of trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT in their publication policies were more compliant than those published in other journals (47.5 ± 10.4 versus 40.8 ± 8.0, p = 0.024).Conclusion: The overall level of compliance with the CONSORT checklist was below 50%. To improve the quality of abstracts of RCTs, authors should be encouraged to use the CONSORT checklist, and editors should check compliance with the CONSORT guidelines as part the publishing workflow.

Post-operative radiotherapy (PORT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), especially after complete resection, has long been an unresolved dilemma and debated among therapeutic disciplines. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different radiotherapy volumes and techniques on local-regional recurrence patterns and PORT results in patients with NSCLC. METHODS The results of 389 patients who underwent surgery and received PORT at 11 centers were analyzed retrospectively. The surgical margin was positive or closes in 100 (26%) patients. The PORT dose was a median of 50 Gy (36-60 Gy). Intensity-modulated RT methods were used in 68 (17.5%) patients. RESULTS The first recurrence of the patients who developed relapse, local recurrence was found in 77 (19.8%) patients, distant recurrence was found in 95 (24%) patients, and both recurrences was found in 30 (8%) patients. The median time to locoregional relapse was 14 months (1.84-59.7 months). Local-regional recurrence was not significantly higher in patients with positive surgical margins than in negative patients (39% vs. 29%, p=0.1), but the dose administered to these patients was also higher. Mediastinal recurrence occurred in 28 (19%) patients who did not receive radiotherapy to the mediastinum; 25 of these recurrences (89%) were just near or outside the field. Cardiac events became 7% in all groups and did not change according to chosen mediastinal radiotherapy volume. CONCLUSION A clear description of the PORT volumes according to the localization of the primary tumor and the involved lymph nodes would be beneficial in terms of establishing the recurrence/toxicity balance better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the issue of misleading metrics and predatory trade in academic publishing. It explains that journal metrics, such as impact factors, are used to measure and compare the quality of research publications. However, the rise of open access journals has led to an increase in low-quality and predatory journals that compete for manuscripts. These predatory journals often use misleading metrics and indexing services to attract authors and generate income. The article provides a list of misleading metrics and highlights the need to raise awareness about these deceptive practices. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Oncology / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Oncology / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Oncology / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Oncology / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Oncology / Türk Onkoloji Dergisi is the property of KARE Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)