22
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Influence of Internet and Social Media in the Promotion of Alternative Oncology, Cancer Quackery, and the Predatory Publishing Phenomenon

      review-article
      1 , , 2
      ,
      Cureus
      Cureus
      quackery, predatory journals, social media, internet, complementary and alternative medicine, oncology

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the last decade, electronic media has irrupted physician’s clinical practice. Patients increasingly use Internet and social media to obtain enormous amounts of unsupervised data about cancer. Blogs, social networking sites, online support groups and forums are useful channels for medical education and experience sharing but also perfect environments for misinformation, quackery, violation of privacy and lack of professionalism. The widespread availability of such electronic resources allows some followers of the alternative oncology to spread useless irrational and controversial remedies for cancer, like false medicaments, miraculous diets, electronic devices, and even psychic therapies, as did charlatans in the past, providing false expectations about cancer treatments. Moreover, so-called predatory journals have introduced confusion and malpractice within the academic biomedical publishing system. This is a rising editorial phenomenon affecting all fields of biomedicine, including oncology that jeopardizes the quality of scientific contribution and damages the image of open access publication.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Twitter Social Media is an Effective Tool for Breast Cancer Patient Education and Support: Patient-Reported Outcomes by Survey

            Background Despite reported benefits, many women do not attend breast cancer support groups. Abundant online resources for support exist, but information regarding the effectiveness of participation is lacking. We report the results of a Twitter breast cancer support community participant survey. Objective The aim was to determine the effectiveness of social media as a tool for breast cancer patient education and decreasing anxiety. Methods The Breast Cancer Social Media Twitter support community (#BCSM) began in July 2011. Institutional review board approval with a waiver of informed consent was obtained for a deidentified survey that was posted for 2 weeks on Twitter and on the #BCSM blog and Facebook page. Results There were 206 respondents to the survey. In all, 92.7% (191/206) were female. Respondents reported increased knowledge about breast cancer in the following domains: overall knowledge (80.9%, 153/189), survivorship (85.7%, 162/189), metastatic breast cancer (79.4%, 150/189), cancer types and biology (70.9%, 134/189), clinical trials and research (66.1%, 125/189), treatment options (55.6%, 105/189), breast imaging (56.6%, 107/189), genetic testing and risk assessment (53.9%, 102/189), and radiotherapy (43.4%, 82/189). Participation led 31.2% (59/189) to seek a second opinion or bring additional information to the attention of their treatment team and 71.9% (136/189) reported plans to increase their outreach and advocacy efforts as a result of participation. Levels of reported anxiety before and after participation were analyzed: 29 of 43 (67%) patients who initially reported “high or extreme” anxiety reported “low or no” anxiety after participation (P<.001). Also, no patients initially reporting low or no anxiety before participation reported an increase to high or extreme anxiety after participation. Conclusions This study demonstrates that breast cancer patients’ perceived knowledge increases and their anxiety decreases by participation in a Twitter social media support group.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

              Background The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals. Methods On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated. Results Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000). Conclusions We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                13 May 2018
                May 2018
                : 10
                : 5
                : e2617
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Neurosurgery, Hospital Universitario De Burgos, Burgos, ESP
                [2 ] Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario De Burgos, Burgos, ESP
                Author notes
                Pedro David Delgado-López pedrodl@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.2617
                6044480
                30027009
                e0df8c60-381c-40c1-9d41-4bb2a2c7a66c
                Copyright © 2018, Delgado-López et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 May 2018
                : 13 May 2018
                Categories
                Medical Education
                Oncology

                quackery,predatory journals,social media,internet,complementary and alternative medicine,oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article