Search

Introduction: Predatory journals harm the integrity of science as principles of 'good scientific practice' are bypassed by omitting a proper peer-review process. Therefore, we aimed to explore the awareness of predatory journals among oncologists., Methods: An online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019., Results: One hundred and eighty-eight participants (55 women (29.2%), 128 men (68.1%)) completed the questionnaire. 41 (21.8%) participants indicated to work in a hospital, 24 (12.8%) in private practice and 112 (59.6%) in a university hospital. 98.9% of participants indicated to actively read scientific articles and consider them in clinical decision-making (96.3%). 90.4% of participants indicated to have scientific experience by publishing papers in journals with peer-review system. The open-access system was known by 170 (90.4%), predatory journals by 131 (69.7%) and Beall's list by 52 participants (27.7%). Predatory journals were more likely to be known by participants with a higher number of publications (p<0.001), with more high-impact publications (p=0.005) and with recent publications (p<0.001). Awareness of predatory journals did not correlate with gender (p=0.515) or translation of scientific literature into clinical practice (p=0.543)., Conclusions: The problematic topic of 'predatory journals' is still unknown by a considerable amount of oncologist, although the survey was taken in a cohort of oncologists with scientific experience. Dedicated educational initiatives are needed to raise awareness of this problem and to aid in the identification of predatory journals for the scientific oncology community., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ASB has research support from Daiichi Sankyo (≤ €10 000), Roche (> €10 000) and honoraria for lectures, consultation or advisory board participation from Roche Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo (all < €5000) as well as travel support from Roche, Amgen and AbbVie., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Informed consent is currently an ethical, medical and legal requirement. Increasing public discussion concerning real or supposed malpractice has caused patients to adopt a critical attitude and has caused courts to increasingly demand informed consent for patients. Unfortunately, the legal requirements for informed consent have developed from atypical situations involving dissatisfied and injured patients rather than from the more common occurrence of physicians helping patients and having satisfied patients. In addition, the law has failed to establish explicit guidelines for physicians. We review the elements of informed consent based on current Austrian and German jurisdiction in the particular field of oncology and summarise the legal and medical realities with the aim of delineating specific criteria for decision making.