, 13 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
Here is an example where a US company published in a "predatory" journal to show that their product has been "peer reviewed".
This is about Rejuvi Laboratories, maker of scar removal creams.
This paper came out today in a Juniper Publishers journal, marked as "Predatory" on Beall's list.
Note the time between submission and acceptance, and what that tells you about the rigor of the peer review process.
Jejuvi Laboratory was founded by a PhD with > 100 articles, and is backed up by a Stanford professor with > 300 publications. So you would assume those folks know how to publish in a good, peer reviewed journal.
Why would they publish about their skin product in a very low impact, not Pub-Med indexed journal, if their findings were really amazing?
Could it be because the manuscript was rejected by other journals?
Let's take a look.
The paper shows 6 examples of scars before / after treatment with ScarCare gel.
The scars indeed look much better, but that is not unexpected after 15-50 days.
There is no control group included (50 days without gel treatment).
Wouldn't most scars look much better over time?
I also noted there was no "conflict of interest" statement. And no statement whether the patients had given permission to use their photos in this paper.
Then, on top of that, there is some issue with the originality of the text. Several sentences in the introduction appear to have been taken straight from the Wikipedia entry "Scar".
The list of references also has some room for improvement.
Maybe this really is an amazing product - who knows.
But I cannot help thinking that if it were really amazing, it could have been published in a more rigorous journal.
This is the scary side of "predatory publishers". They will accept whatever they get, without proper peer review, without caring about plagiarism, lack of control group, conflict of interest, or patient privacy and consent.
And the company that published in those bottom-feeder journals now can proudly proclaim their product has been "peer reviewed". The general audience cannot easily know if this is true or false.
And so this "peer-reviewed" white paper will end up proudly with all the other "research publications" of this Stanford/Berkeley educated duo.
Note that most of these are just articles in beauty magazines.
* Rejuvi - apologies for this typo.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Elisabeth Bik
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!