Talk:Cureus
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cureus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Open access status
[edit]This journal used to be listed at DOAJ, according to https://fatcat.wiki/container/74mctp3frjfttdv6dx4dzh6lbm, but no longer is: https://doaj.org/toc/2168-8184 . Was there an announcement explaining the change? Nemo 14:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Context of Emory University study
[edit]The text of this article currently states "A study conducted by librarians of Emory University found that Cureus was in the top 2 of institutional publications deemed predatory or untrustworthy." On face value, this is rather confusing to me (e.g. did they only look at three or three hundred journals?). And looking at the original study we find that the scope of the Emory librarian study was Emory-affiliated faculty ("we look at the publication record within one academic health sciences institution to determine the potential local impact of the issue", "Using an internal database of publications by current faculty..." "Our findings highlight two journals that represented 50% of the controversial or predatory publications among our faculty"). So in reality, this internal study found that over 50% of 109 articles by Emory health science researchers that appeared in any controversial journal appeared in Cureus or Oncotarget. Ok, I think it's fair to ask how noteworthy or relevant is that in an article about Cureus? I think either the blurb mentioning the Emory study should be clarified (without giving undue weight, elaboration, and needless pedantic data) or omitted entirely as it seems to be largely an in-house report by, about, and for Emory University researchers and their practices. We need not shoehorn in studies merely because they mention Cureus, especially if scope, context, and significance is misrepresented. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The url linking to the original study on the wikipedia page is also dead. 130.132.173.98 (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that someone expanded this section about the Emory study. While it might be a more accurate description of the study, the expansion diverts from the main subject. The article is about Cureus, not Emory. I think this paragraph should be removed. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
characterizing peer review
[edit]The article seems inaccurate. As discussed here, Cureus bills itself as "Single-Blind, Pre-Publication Peer Review" with "Optional Post-Publication Review". ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)