NO EN Logg inn

Cancers

Grunnleggende informasjon

Internasjonal tittel:

Cancers

e-ISSN:

2072-6694         Periode: [2009 .. ]

Språk:

Engelsk

Utgiverland:

Internasjonal

URL:

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers

Forlag:

MDPI

ITAR-kode:

1024390

NPI Fagfelt:

Onkologi

Minimumskriterier

✅ Vitenskapelig redaksjon
✅ Fagfellevurdert
✅ Internasjonal forfatterkrets
✅ Godkjent ISSN

Åpen tilgang

 Inkludert i en publiseringsavtale:
Institusjonsavtale Gyldig til 31.12.2024
MDPI
1 Institusjoner i avtalen: Vis [+]
Universitetet i Bergen
Plan S: Journal Checker Tool [+]

Nivåplasseringer og UH-sektorens publiseringspoeng

Vedtak: 06.02.24: I samråd med publiseringskomiteen for onkologi beholder tidsskriftet nivå 1.

År Nivå Forfatterandeler Publiseringspoeng
2024 1
2023 1
2022 1 13.9476 31.1092
2021 1 18.9421 37.9808
2020 1 9.2337 17.6113
2019 1 6.8936 12.8365
2018 1 0.5 0.7071
2017 1 0.75 0.8165
2016 1 1.5 1.9
2015 1 0.0 0.0
2014 1 0.0 0.0
Offentliggjøres i mai året etter

Kommentarer

Kommentarer som gjelder oppdatering av informasjon, er kun synlig for deg og saksbehandler. Kommentarer som gjelder faglige innspill og nivå, blir offentlige.

Logg inn for å kommentere
I en analyse av innhold av de uvanlige frasene "Data sharing is not applicable to this article" og "Data is contained within the article", scorer dette tidsskriftet høyt. Henholdsvis 343 og 202 artikler ble identifisert for å inneholde disse frasene under Data availability. Artiklene er publisert i perioden 2021-2023.

Enkelte av de identifiserte artiklene er oversiktsartikler hvor bruk av disse frasene kan forsvares, men mange av artiklene representerer orginalartikler hvor data har blitt generert.

Publisering av et så stort antall artikler med disse uvanlige og uvitenskapelige frasene er mistenkelig og tyder på publisering av masseproduserte meningsløse artikler uten vitenskapelig innhold. MDPI har et frynsete rykte med ekstreme volumer av publiserte artikler og uvanlig kort prosseseringstid fra innsending til akseptering. Her er det kvantitet som teller, ikke kvalitet.

Problematic paper screener har identifisert 10 artikler med høyst tvilsomme referanser (såkalte "clayfeet"), de fleste er fra perioden 2020-22:
https://dbrech.irit.fr/pls/apex/f?p=9999:3:::NO:::

Redaksjonen mangler tydeligvis den nødvendige kvalitetskontrollen for å drive et seriøst tidsskrift. Videre bryter de med prinsippet om åpenhet og at data skal være tilgjengelig.

Eksempler på identifiserte artikler fra frasesøk (doi):
10.3390/cancers13246257
10.3390/cancers14122881
10.3390/cancers13030446
10.3390/cancers13225869
10.3390/cancers13020247
10.3390/cancers13061289
10.3390/cancers13040639
10.3390/cancers15051492
10.3390/cancers13051042
10.3390/cancers14246068
10.3390/cancers14205127
10.3390/cancers13133208
10.3390/cancers13133208
10.3390/cancers13061326
10.3390/cancers14030802
10.3390/cancers13164105
10.3390/cancers13133229
Jeg har ikke inngående kunnskap om tidsskriftet, men publiserte i Cancers i 2021 (https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13143483) og opplevde en ordinær review-prosess med to reviewere, to runder med revisjon og kommentarer fra editor. Kommentarene var stort sett relevante og ikke ulike det jeg opplever på nivå 1 eller nivå 2. Jeg deler noe av kommunikasjonen under.

Når det gjelder «data not available», som innsender anfører som tvilsomt, kan dette ofte være relevant i medisinsk forskning. Samtykker er ofte basert på deltakelse i et helt spesifikt prosjekt og gjelder ikke deling med enhver eventuell interessent. Den aktuelle artikkelen hadde REK-dispensasjon fra samtykke for bruk av nasjonale registerdata. Forskergruppa har taushetsplikt og kan ikke dele datasettet med andre. Det er meget strenge regler og rutiner for dette, og mye administrasjon for å ivareta personvernet. Om andre vil se data må de søke om dette og vurderes for dispensasjon av relevante instanser. Vi hadde derfor følgende data availability statement: «All data can be accessed by appropriate application to the public registries used in this study.» I praksis betyr det at data ikke er tilgjengelige fra forskergruppa.

Noe kommunikasjon med referees/editor for doi.org/10.3390/cancers13143483:
Response to Reviewer 1:

> R1: In my opinion, authors must specify better the definition of catch-up vs opportunistic vaccination. In general, I suggest to tell about national vaccine program plan referring to the official regulations in force in Norway.

Authors: We have added more information regarding the HPV vaccination policy in Norway and moved this to the introduction (as suggested by referee 2), and expanded the explanation on the definition of the opportunistic and catch-up vaccination (abstract, introduction and methods section 2.2).


> R1: In Norway catch-up up vaccination is considered until 26 years, like in other European countries ?.

Authors: We now account more fully for catch-up vaccination towards the end of the introduction. The program was defined in terms of birth cohorts and vaccination status rather than age.


> R1: Data and numbers about the type of vaccine administered are missing. I think this would interesting and should be added if possible, specifying bivalent, quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccine.

Authors: As suggested, we have added this information to the results (section 3.1).


> R1: Moreover, I would like to understand why the catch-up-up vaccination has been exclusively performed with the bivalent vaccine.

Authors: The vaccine offered in the program is decided in a tendering process. We have added this information in the introduction paragraph on HPV vaccination in Norway.


> R1: Exploring reason of refuse opportunistic HPV vaccination the expensive cost should be taken into account. The authors reported that the cost for three doses of vaccine was approximately €350: das it remain consistent during all the period observation covered by the study (any time during October 2006 to June 2018) ?.

Authors: The pricing has been equivalent but not constant throughout the study period, and we have added some text to reflect this in the first paragraph of section 2.2.


> R1: HPV school–based vaccination program may have better coverage as evident in other countries and as reported in literature study. The authors reported that free of charge HPV school-vaccination program in Norway started since 2009. May this have been some impact on completion rate of catch-up vaccination ?

Authors: None of the women in the study cohort was ever eligible for the routine school-based program. We have added this information explicitly at the end of the first paragraph of section 2.2, for clarification. Because the routine and catch-up programs were entirely separate, we do not see any obvious potential connection between the coverage of the routine program and the completion rate in the catch-up program.


> R1: Furthermore, I think it would be interesting to discuss the factors that motivate the decision to not complete the HPV vaccine schedule.

Authors: We now discuss this point in the third paragraph of the discussion.


> R1: Finally, I would like know if the are some hypotheses underlying the differences found between the regions of residence.

Authors: In an attempt to interpret the regional differences observed, we have added a paragraph in the discussion which mentions that regions vary by population density and that administration of vaccination programs is on the municipal level. We also added two references to this new paragraph, to put it into context.


> R1: Reference list appears up to date. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets, following the correct style of the journal guidelines.

Authors: We have edited the reference and bibliography format.

Response to Reviewer 2:


> R2: Abstract/introduction: I would suggest defining what you mean by "opportunistic" and "catch-up" in the abstract and provide a more detailed description in the introduction. I am not sure if these will be widely familiar terms (or they may have different meanings to different readers). I also suggest moving the description of HPV vaccination in Norway (currently 2.2) into the introduction. This would help readers understand the meaning of the terms "opportunistic" and "catch-up."

Authors: We have expanded to description of the modes of vaccination, both in the abstract and in the introduction, and moved the description of HPV vaccination to the introduction, as suggested. We have also expanded the definition of the modes of vaccination addressed in our study in the methods (section 2.2), since all details in our opinion do not fit in the abstract or introduction – especially the parts that relate directly to the study data.


> R2: Introduction: I suggest including information about the efficacy and cost-efficiency of the vaccine in different age groups. In particular, what is the value of vaccination for individuals who are past the target 9-13 age range? What about individuals in the 27+ group? This information would help the reader understand the significance/value of your study.

Authors: The second and third paragraphs of the introduction gives an account of vaccine effect, and we have added some sentences relating to age and cost-effectiveness in this part of the manuscript. We also return to this point in the discussion.


> R2: Introduction: I suggest you explain why you chose to study only women. I imagine the reason is that the vaccine has not been widely used in males in Norway until very recently. Readers from other locations where vaccination in males has been common for many years may wonder why you chose to exclude men in your study.

Authors: We added information about when routine vaccination of boys was included in the vaccination program in the introduction, and added a statement regarding the negligible HPV vaccine uptake among men during the study period in the first paragraph of the methods section.


> R2: Introduction/methods: I suggest explaining your rationale for including region as a variable in your study. Did you have a hypothesis about how region might impact results? E.g., for those not familiar with Norway's geography, are certain regions more urban and others more rural? Do some regions have larger immigrant populations? The significance of region is not evident to me.

Authors: In an attempt to interpret the regional differences observed, we have added a paragraph in the discussion which mentions that regions vary by population density and that administration of vaccination programs is on the municipal level.


> R2: Methods: Have there been any Norwegian regulatory approvals or guideline recommendations related to the 2-dose vaccination regimen that is in currently used for certain populations in other countries? If no, it might be worth mentioning that the 2-dose regimen is not in use (or was not in use during the time studied) to support your definition of three doses as a "complete" vaccination.

Authors: We have added information on dosing recommendations in the introduction paragraph on HPV vaccination in Norway.


> R2: Results: How many of the members of your cohort were, themselves, immigrants? How did you handle immigrants who may have received their vaccinations before coming to Norway? Were these people excluded? Did you have information about vaccinations that people received prior to immigration?

Authors: The general issue raised here is potential HPV vaccination outside Norway. We have no way of obtaining this information in this registry-based study on such a large population and can thus not apply an exclusion criterium to address this issue. We have added this as a potential limitation of the study towards the end of the discussion.


> R2: Results: You might consider clarifying what you mean by "crude," "unadjusted," and "adjusted." I think crude and unadjusted refer to univariable analysis, while adjusted refers to multivariable analysis. It might be worth making these definitions explicit.

Authors: We now define unadjusted and adjusted models at the start of section 2.3, and only use these terms throughout the rest of the manuscript. Hence, we no longer use the term “crude”.


> R2: Tables: I suggest listing p values or highlighting/bolding rows with variables that were statistically significant.

Authors: We have bolded significant results in all tables, as suggested.


> R2: Discussion/Conclusions: What do you mean by campaigns? For people who cannot afford opportunistic vaccination, are you suggesting that the government subsidize the cost of vaccination? This is where some discussion of the value of opportunistic vaccination and catch-up vaccination would be useful. Are opportunistic vaccination and catch-up vaccination effective and/or cost-effective? How important is it for public health authorities to focus their efforts on this area? Should the government pay for or advocate for therapy whose efficacy/cost-efficiency is uncertain?

Authors: We have made some changes to the conclusion on this point, specifying that the campaigns relate to the catch-up program. Regarding cost-effectiveness, we have added to the second paragraph of the discussion section. Note, however, that the focus of this paper is inequities, and that giving a full account of the extensive cost-effectiveness literature, with its conflicting findings and varying assumptions, is beyond the scope of this paper. We believe that the four extra references we give on cost-effectiveness in this revision will provide the reader with a sound basis from which to explore this topic further.


Response to Editor:

Dear Editor

Thank you for your comments. Below we address each of them:

Editor comment: Can you elaborate this exclusion criteria: "None of the women 201 included in this study were eligible for routine school-based HPV vaccination."

Author reply: The “201” was not intended from our side. It might have been a line number or a typo? In any case, we apologize if we have caused confusion here. We have ensured that “201” does not appear in this sentence in the newly uploaded version. Thus, this sentence now reads: “None of the women included in this study were eligible for routine school-based HPV vaccination.” This statement is not meant as an exclusion criterium, and is the result of a clarification suggested by one of the referees.

Editor comment: Can you also include the p-values along with CI, maybe different symbols for different range of p-value is suffice in the tables, but include the actual p-value for the statistically significant variables in the text in the results.

Author reply: As suggested, we have new version added symbols for the p-values of all table estimates plus footnotes to define the symbols, as well as p-values in the text. We have also removed the bold phase for the significant table results because the significance level now is evident from the new symbols.

Editor comment: Can you justify the age cohort groups (year of birth)? and why the reference used is appropriate?

Author reply: Categorizing variables calls for a number of pragmatic considerations. We divided the cohort into groups with the same number of birth years (to the extent possible), so that they were of approximately equal size, contained a sufficient number of women to make sound statistical inference, while at the same time ensuring that the number of groups was neither too many nor too few to provide useful information for the statistical models we employ. For tables 1-2, which contain women born 1975-1996, having groups that singled out birth years eligible for catch-up vaccination, i.e. born 1991 and later, were of importance. Having three birth years for each group satisfied these considerations for the analyses corresponding to tables 1-2. Similarly, for tables 3-4, which contain women born 1991-1996, we considered two birth years in each group as appropriate. Regarding the reference level, we chose the earliest group because this in our opinion makes the interpretation of the model estimates most intuitive in case of a gradual effect.
We will of course be happy to give this kind of detail for each variable in the text, but it will require a lot of space and perhaps not add so much to the understanding of the results. Hence, we have just added this more general statement in the manuscript to address the choice of reference group (in section 2.3 Statistical analysis):
“The same variables with the same categories were addressed for all outcomes. For ordinal variables, we chose the lowest category as the reference level, while for nominal variables we generally chose the category with the highest number of women as the reference category.”


Editor comment: It is stated that "Due to the high proportion of missing values for maternal education and maternal occupation, we did not include these variables in adjusted models" Given that one the main findings/conclusion of the study is "low uptake is associated with having two immigrant parents and low household income" - is it correct that maternal income was available but not occupation? please clarify.

Author reply: Yes, that is correct. The registration of occupation is incomplete at Statistics Norway, while this is not the case for income, for which the data are taken from administrative tax registries which of course have a very high completeness. To further clarify this issue in the manuscript, we now state (in section 2.3 Statistical analysis):
“Due to the high proportion of missing values for maternal education and maternal occupation resulting from relatively low completeness for these variables at Statistics Norway, we did not include these variables in adjusted models.”

Direktoratet for høgare utdanning og kompetanse
Postboks 1093, 5809 Bergen
Tlf: 55 30 38 00
E-post: post@hkdir.no



Personvern

Tilgjengelighetserklæring

Informasjonskapsler

Innhold på denne siden er lisensiert under Norsk lisens for offentlige data (NLOD) Norsk lisens for offentlige data (NLOD) og Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)).

https://kanalregister.hkdir.no tilbyr informasjonskapsler for å lære mer om sine brukere. Jeg samtykker Nei takk