Cureus | Newsroom


The Clinical & Public Health Implications of Abortion Bans & Restrictions

We would like to thank all of the authors who participated in this call for submissions. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has major national public health repercussions. While abortion has long been a hot topic in the political arena, we believe it should be viewed through a clinical and public health lens, not via one’s political ideology. We hope this initiative will help raise awareness and prompt discussion about abortion, reproductive rights and maternal mortality. While the United Stated Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade prompted this call for articles, we understand that abortion access and reproductive rights are a global topic affecting people all over the world. Read the articles below: Abortion Is a Right: Perspectives of Family Medicine Physician Residents   The Relationship Between Access to Abortion and Mental Health in Women of Childbearing Age: Analyses of Data From the Global Burden of Disease Studies   Isotretinoin, Vitamin A Supplements, and Unintended Pregnancies in Post Roe v. Wade America   The Interest in Permanent Contraception Peaked Following the Leaked Supreme Court Majority Opinion of Roe vs. Wade: A Cross-Sectional Google Trends Analysis   The Medical and Financial Burden of Illegal Abortion   Effects and Proposed Countermeasures of Abortion Bans and Restrictions on People With Uteruses and Society   Looking for a Silver Lining to the Dark Cloud: A Google Trends Analysis of Contraceptive Interest in the United States Post Roe vs. Wade Verdict   Misadventure of an Unsafe Abortion Sexual Debut, Sexual Education, Abortion, Awareness and Prevalence of Contraceptive Among Female Undergraduates Students in Public and Private Universities in Ekiti State, Nigeria

Nov 17, 2022

What is "Credible Science"?

by Dr. John Adler At the heart of every peer-reviewed journal is a publication philosophy. Most popular medical journals focus on “important” medical science. However, from my vantage point as a career scholar, “importance” is an ethereal “eye of the beholder” standard which inevitably feeds reviewer bias; one day a topic is hot but soon thereafter journals have lost interest, simply mirroring trends in the broader culture. Meanwhile author provenance also tends to weigh heavy on reviewer decisions about importance; even double-blinded review is not truly blind in the deeply specialized world of medicine in which we live. In contrast, from an author’s vantage, journal acceptance or rejection decisions tend to be rather capricious; submit to a journal (i.e. not Cureus), wait for the rejection before reformatting and resubmitting to a second journal, and repeat as many times as necessary to be published. Although this practice is a huge waste of everyone’s time, it has forever been the modus operandi for a journal industry obsessed with identifying and publishing “important” medical science. Given the colossal time inefficiency of the current journal paradigm, as well as the real-world expense associated with such subjective decision making, Cureus’ philosophy has been to embrace a very different threshold for publication, which we term “credible medical science”. What do we mean by the term “credible” science? “Credible science” is published science that simply reflects a “good faith” effort to ask and answer a relevant medical question. It involves care in collecting and analyzing data, then writing and formatting a proper manuscript, and finally responding appropriately to reviewer questions. At the end of this elaborate process, Cureus’ credible science may or may not ultimately be proven correct via future confirmatory studies. Even though this is and always has been the identical reality for every other published peer-reviewed journal, Cureus' willingness to live without the charade of article importance miffs some (self-anointed) high priests within academic publishing. Furthermore, a lazy news media has grown comfortable with the axiomatic fig leaf that peer-reviewed science is, drum roll, absolute truth. The absence within Cureus of an absolute truth façade that our “credible science” standard accepts is disorienting to those who prefer a black-and-white world while blissfully ignoring the countless examples of once important scientific articles, published in the “best” journals, that are eventually debunked. My point is that no peer review process is ever foolproof and like everything in life, when it comes to interpreting published science in ALL journals, the old adage “buyer beware” applies. What is presented on the written digital or analog page must, like other forms of human communication, always be interpreted by an engaged reader. Cureus’ “credible science” standard is, at its core, a grown-up acknowledgement of reality. Now I understand that Cureus’ disinterest in article “importance” is particularly irksome to some industry insiders who have made long careers defining and evangelizing on behalf of (and benefitting from) “important” (supposedly) medical science. Cureus' commonsense standard for “credible science” and our journal’s refusal to censor unpopular (unimportant?) ideas does occasionally rankle critics. However, I am struck by the fact that some of the most vociferous critics of our “credible science” philosophy have themselves almost zero experience publishing real science in real medical journals. I liken most of these experts to the proverbial guy on the couch drinking beer and watching Sunday football on TV. How often is the guy futilely telling the coach on the field how to do his job, himself a former professional star with deep domain knowledge of football? Almost never! Nearly always, the critic is just another dude with an opinion. Nevertheless, if you really know how to call better plays for a professional football team, I urge you to get with it and become a highly-paid coach. Meanwhile, if you think you know how to create better science, and publish better articles, please be my guest and allow our journal to make the process as effortless as possible. Important or not, all that Cureus demands is that your science be ”credible”.

Sep 29, 2022

Cureus Call for Submissions: Mental Health Awareness

  Mental Health Awareness Thank you to everyone who submitted to our "Mental Health Awareness Call for Submissions." Each year millions of people all over the world face the reality of living with a mental illness. We hope these submissions will help raise awareness and prompt discussion about mental health. Please find the articles below. Exploration of the Role of Relationships and Virtual Learning on Academic Performance and Mental Health The Correlates of Government Expenditure on Mental Health Services: An Analysis of Data From 78 Countries and Regions Prevalence of Anxiety Disorder in Adolescents in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Role of Art Therapy in the Promotion of Mental Health: A Critical Review The Impact of COVID-19 on Postpartum Depression and the Responsibility of the Healthcare System Twitter as a Knowledge Translation Tool to Increase Awareness of the OpenHEARTSMAP Psychosocial Assessment and Management Tool in the Field of Pediatric Emergency Mental Health Charles Bonnet Syndrome With Superimposed Delirium Michigan Marijuana Legalization: Correlations Among Cannabis Use, Mental Health, and Other Factors Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Pregnant Women Towards COVID-19: An On-site Cross-sectional Survey The Inmate Who Continues to Seize: Delayed Diagnosis of Zolpidem Withdrawal Due to Functional Mimics Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Strategies for Assessing Suicidal Behavior and Mental Illness: A Literature Review Rectal Foreign Bodies: Surgical Management and the Impact of Psychiatric Illness Diagnostic Delays and Psychosocial Outcomes of Childhood-Onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus “Doctor, You Must Examine My Creature Collection!”: A Case Report of Delusional Infestation A Case of Coexisting Depression and Hoarding Disorder Waiting for Care: Length of Stay for ED Mental Health Patients by Disposition, Diagnosis, and Region (2009–2015) Psychoactive Drugs in the Management of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Promising New Horizon Factors Associated With Resilience Among Healthcare Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study Stress and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Clear Mind, Happy Colon On Patterns of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Case Reports

Aug 29, 2022