Dear Samia Husain thank you very much bringing up to this valid discussion whether Cureus is a good or bad journal or a predatory one. I will be commenting your question with my Editor in Chief, editorial board member for various medical journals and reviewers and a author hat.

According to my experience for that specific journal it’s a VERY credible author oriented / friendly journal.

I have published 3 original paper and one case report so far and I WILL continue to publish there in Cureus as it is fast and reliable reviewing process, no APC fee ( except preferred editing services with low payments). I will touch pros and cons below:

PROS:

1. ”Cureus“ is an PubMed indexed and Emerging Science Citation (ESCI) index journal. I disagree completely that it is a predatory or unreliable journal.

2. “Cureus” motto is “ peer reviewing isn’t not a peer Rejection “ as I completely agree.

3. Editors in chiefs are highly prestigious Professors, Professor John R.Adler from Stanford University is a genius professor who is widely credited with creating the field of image guided radiosurgery. Second Co-Chief EIC is Professor Alexander Muacevic who has a self speaking CV He is the president of the International Radiosurgery society.

4. Cureus editorial board is very broad and you can see high calibre researchers all over the world.

5. Cureus is an on line journal with no APC fees other than Has - in house- preferred editing services with low burden on the authors shoulders.

6. Cureus has very clear guidance and support from submission to publication, very author friendly.

7. Their One of the unique feature Is Allows post publication Scoring by any readers (SIQ scoring) and you can make any instant COMMENTS like rapid response letter submission without any boundaries which I love and admire this feature.

8. There is section allows medical students competitions ( which I haven’t interrogated this section yet).

9. Cureus web site is quite didactic and easy to follow.

CONS:

1. Cureus is one of the fastest reviewing process; some researchers would find it a bit unusual and questionable but for me this is fantastic! As a reviewer and Editor, if I appoint revireviewer , I wish they should respond the reviewing request fast( accept or reject) in days nothin weeks and if they agree to review, I would like to see their review report on the submission system in maximum 2 weeks time.

2. I think, Their rejection rates low But don’t see published rubbish articles so far in their system and as of today I read and scored nearly 500 articles.

3. Cannot tract journal impact factor for some reason.

I think Cureus should be promoted to one of the Science Citation Index ( expanded) journal. as you know it is indexing at ESCI.

Cureus is not in the predatory journals Bells list.

I personally continue to submit my pieces to that lovely journal.

I hope I would be able to eluded the question.

Kind regards,

Dr.Emre Pakdemirli

I think it's just a different way of publishing, but still valid

@ Andrew Paul McKenzie have you ever published with them?

It is very important to publish in a trusted and indexed journals under a well-know publisher.

Please see the link below.

https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/08/some-strange-goings-on-at-cureus/

@ Emad Kamil Hussein it is indexed in pubmed, but the articles i have seen published by cureus are mostly those that would not have been published by even any low impact factor journal. Mostly retrospective data or case reports! n each case report has "a rare" added to title!

Samia Husain, Cureus is an is an open access general medical journal known for its rather unusual crowdsourcing-type peer-review process. I'm not a medical researcher, but if I was, I would stay away from this journal. See also the following link:

https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-way-for-doctors-to-share-their-medical-mysteries/

Frank T. Edelmann that is exactly what i plan to do. The credibility is questionable but why is it even indexed in pubmed? polluting a reliable search engine!!!

Arvind Singh exactly!!!

There are bad comments on Cureus . The reviewing process in 3 days so there is no reviewing. Therefore, it is a waste of time

According to its founder, John Adler, MD, a Stanford professor of neurosurgery, emeritus;

An efficient peer review happens before an article is published and then there is a post publication scoring process. Every reader is invited to give a numerical score. However, someone who has deep domain knowledge as a specialist in a specific field gets more votes over a general practitioner. If an article is scored many dozens of times, then we get a very good measure of the article's quality. Ultimately, Cureus aspires to use the collective wisdom of all physicians.

I am not quite familiar with the Cureus Publication, but what I understand, they are the Journal of Medical Science, which is far from my profession. However, if in doubt, I think much better to publish to a trusted publisher.

The credibility of a journal may be assessed by examining several key factors:

Citation from the link cited below:

"The journal does not have a traditional impact factor; however, there is a system for peer scoring and tracking of page views (proxy measures of impact)."

Article Increasing Students’ Publication Productivity: Could Launchi...

Ronald Valledor Gomeseria so this basically means it scores 2/4. only plus is that it is pubmed indexed. no impact factor, questionable review.

Frank T. Edelmann thank you so much for clarifying it! hugely appreciated

Samia Husain you're very welcome. Try to beware of dubious journals wherever you can!

I have just submitted a paper to Cureus. The process is much more time consuming than submission to a regular journal as you essentially build the version of the manuscript that will potentially be published during the submission process. Having never used the system before it took 3 days for me to format the paper to their requirements. I confess that I checked and rechecked the submission requirements several times during this process. So next time it will be quicker.

I had to choose reviewers before submitting the manuscript. However, once I submitted the manuscript the editor assigned reviewed the submission, approved it and sent it out for review within hours.

The following day two reviews had been completed. Minor modifications were requested (which improved the quality of the work). I have edited the manuscript and resubmitted for editorial review.

I await their response. However whether it is accepted or not the whole process has been a breath of fresh air.

In the last 6 months I have been involved with a total of 64 submissions to journals from 11 ongoing projects. Of those 7 have been published, 6 have been accepted for publication and 14 are under peer review (including the Cureus paper).

Besides the paper submitted to Cureus I have no idea what is going on with the papers that are under review. However, Cureus provides clear data on how many reviewers have been asked and how many have accepted. I can see the reviews as soon as they are done.

Although I recognise that the Kudos of Cureus at present is significantly below that of a traditional journal, the concept and the process is certainly disruptive to the status quo of research publication.

Regardless of the outcome of this submission I will certainly submit work to Cureus again.

In my opinion, ease of submission does not equate to quality of journal..anyways congratulations on submitting your work and all the best for future publications.

I fully agree that ease of submission does not reflect quality. However I was highlighting that the speed of the process is like Warp 10 in comparison to the traditional model of research submission and publication. Furthermore the process is more transparent. It would certainly be ideal if the traditional models of could try to emulate Cureus in these respects.

What I really liked was that I could see the reviewers' comments immediately as they uploaded them and would get an email to say that a review had been completed. I could then start work to revised the manuscript and the respond immediately if necessary. I believe much of the process is automated by the Cureus' website once the editor and the authors submit their recommendations for reviewers so would not require much additional effort from the editors.

For example I initially submitted what I believe to be important work relevant to COVID-19 in mid July. I received reviewers comments in September. Responded and resubmitted within 7 days and am still awaiting the final editorial response in mid October. The peer-review processes involved are no more rigorous than those undertaken by Cureus but the time scale is substantially longer.

You are absolutely correct in saying so. The speed of publication and transparency are critical issues, most well reputed journals take eons to respond and at times they reject the submission after a year or so which is very disheartening and counterproductive to authors.

Dear Samia Husain thank you very much bringing up to this valid discussion whether Cureus is a good or bad journal or a predatory one. I will be commenting your question with my Editor in Chief, editorial board member for various medical journals and reviewers and a author hat.

According to my experience for that specific journal it’s a VERY credible author oriented / friendly journal.

I have published 3 original paper and one case report so far and I WILL continue to publish there in Cureus as it is fast and reliable reviewing process, no APC fee ( except preferred editing services with low payments). I will touch pros and cons below:

PROS:

1. ”Cureus“ is an PubMed indexed and Emerging Science Citation (ESCI) index journal. I disagree completely that it is a predatory or unreliable journal.

2. “Cureus” motto is “ peer reviewing isn’t not a peer Rejection “ as I completely agree.

3. Editors in chiefs are highly prestigious Professors, Professor John R.Adler from Stanford University is a genius professor who is widely credited with creating the field of image guided radiosurgery. Second Co-Chief EIC is Professor Alexander Muacevic who has a self speaking CV He is the president of the International Radiosurgery society.

4. Cureus editorial board is very broad and you can see high calibre researchers all over the world.

5. Cureus is an on line journal with no APC fees other than Has - in house- preferred editing services with low burden on the authors shoulders.

6. Cureus has very clear guidance and support from submission to publication, very author friendly.

7. Their One of the unique feature Is Allows post publication Scoring by any readers (SIQ scoring) and you can make any instant COMMENTS like rapid response letter submission without any boundaries which I love and admire this feature.

8. There is section allows medical students competitions ( which I haven’t interrogated this section yet).

9. Cureus web site is quite didactic and easy to follow.

CONS:

1. Cureus is one of the fastest reviewing process; some researchers would find it a bit unusual and questionable but for me this is fantastic! As a reviewer and Editor, if I appoint revireviewer , I wish they should respond the reviewing request fast( accept or reject) in days nothin weeks and if they agree to review, I would like to see their review report on the submission system in maximum 2 weeks time.

2. I think, Their rejection rates low But don’t see published rubbish articles so far in their system and as of today I read and scored nearly 500 articles.

3. Cannot tract journal impact factor for some reason.

I think Cureus should be promoted to one of the Science Citation Index ( expanded) journal. as you know it is indexing at ESCI.

Cureus is not in the predatory journals Bells list.

I personally continue to submit my pieces to that lovely journal.

I hope I would be able to eluded the question.

Kind regards,

Dr.Emre Pakdemirli

I think just a waste of time.

The given few samples from the year 2015. I also have seen some retracted papers from Cureus but also highly popular journal called The New Journal of England which has a sky high IF. As EIC stated 2015, “ No journal is perfect“ and I can assure you avarage review time about 7-14 days not in 2 days. My latest articles reviewed by 5 reviwer and lasted about a month from submission to publication in the journal ( not Visible in PubMed yet)

its a high calibre, multitask a very good journal and I would recommend it to anybody without reservations.

Kind regards,

Emre

I think it could be helpful and useful for some researchers.

Some Strange Goings On at Cureus https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/08/some-strange-goings-on-at-cureus/

Samia Husain , I did not try to publish in Cureus Journals as I am unsure if these are predatory or not; they send frequent invitation emails and some of the journals are indexed on PubMed, maybe that's why they have become attractive for student researches.

Hi Saima

I followed your question when I planned to submit my manuscript.

I thought to answer you now as I think I am in a position to add to everyone's knowledge...

I submitted my first manuscript in this journal last month, the process of submission I found easier than other journals. The editor selected and was then reviewed by reviewers chosen by them... On advise, revised the manuscript and re-submitted which then went for Editor approval and after few days selected for publication on answering additional questions. This was a very nice and encouraging experience with the article published within weeks rather months when you wait to know that your manuscript is rejected.

This is the link " doi:10.7759/cureus.11320 "

Later, submitted another paper but was rejected for selection for review by editor within a day...

So I can say that experience is good, easier submission process, PubMed indexed peer-reviewed journal, with the journal to publication as a matter of days to weeks. It does reject if, think, will not add much to research...

I still wish to submit more to this journal and encourage others to submit too

Cureus may not be a perfect medical journal but it is a pubmed journal which is a big pro for fellowship students completing their publication requirement for fellowship exit exams

Is this journal is Scopus indexed?

No, but it is PubMed and Web of Science indexed. It's a good (not extraordinary) journal.

When editors describe their own journal as surgical sink for publication, alot of queries are automatically answered. The editors just wanted a repository for their work, paid for indexation which was originally in pubmed central where all manuscripts can be deposited. I think I can safely say that the editors were not lying, they meant what they said, dump your manuscript in an authorised bin!! I do not intend to hurt any sentiments or provoke any hatred, but even if it's easier to publish in this journal there are alot of cons of publishing in such journals. People who give credit for such publications are also not well exposed to the nuances of their review process. A time may soon come when no credit would be given for such publications. As far as my country's scenario is concerned, we do not get any credit for a publication that is published in a journal that has no impact factor. You can always support new journals by writing and reviewing for them. I would also like to ask how many of you would even consider sending your manuscript to them if cureus did not deposit them in pubmed central? I am assuming almost noone.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/addjournal/

"Any journal that submits an application that meets all the pre-application requirements undergoes an evaluation process. As part of the evaluation process, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) considers a journal’s scope as well as the scientific and editorial quality of the publication. Journals selected for inclusion in PMC are also evaluated on technical quality. Publishers are encouraged to read through all steps and review PMC's policies before submitting an application".

They do not accept every paper and being indexed in PMC is a very good thing. Moreover, they are WoS indexed. We're not talking about Nature, of course; but Cureus is a scientific journal.

It's no a predator journal. It can be considered as low quality journal and publishing in it depends on the quality of your article and whether it can be accepted in another specialized journal

I agree with dr Amr A Arafat

Still it is pubmed indexed and provides platform to your article to maximum reach.

I just used Cureus recently and I'm very pleased with the submission and review process. Submission is easy and straightforward and I think ALL journals should really start to think about how to make manuscript submission process clear and easy to follow. This is for the benefit of everyone, authors and the journals alike!

I was skeptical when they asked me to suggest reviewers myself but then I realized they actually mandate also other reviewers that I have not suggested to review the manuscript IN ADDITION to those I suggested, which I think is a good idea. Also, I got really good feedback and suggestions from both sides. I think my article looked much neater after the peer review process. They are not 100% free which I'm OK with, specially with their cost being relatively cheaper than other OA journals.

What is important for me in any publication process is that:

1. the peer review process is credible and reasonably quick

2. if someone resarches "Google scholars" or "PubMed" with key words related to my article they will be able to find my article

Cureus met these 2 key principles and I decided to continue using it from now on!

Most journals ask for opposed reviewers. Plus a quick peer review does not mean a credible review. Any article published in pubmed can be searched via key words. We have established that it is a journal in pubmed so gets some benefits but the peer review or the sheer speed of it does not make credible . I would like to add that impact factor is the most reliable metric for assessing the quality of a journal and it doesn't have that. Sorry if it hurts the sentiments of anyone, but we as authors, publish for a variety of reasons and sometimes we do choose journals that are not good enough but available enough. It is a medium available to all but that does not make it credible, it is just a very "available" option for people who just want to be a published author in pubmed!

Impact factor (IF) is not without its limitations and, unfortunately, does not directly relate to the peer review process. It is a reflection of citation rate, which depends on many other factors, and obviously relatively new journals will have to wait few years before their IF see the light. Quick peer eview process does not mean credible review but slow review process does not mean credible review either! Ideas that are not published in journals with high IF does not make them low quality ideas. I see no harm in just wanting "to be published author in pubmed", as far as you did what it takes to be so as determined by other peers, and as far as it will be available for others to read and determine for themselves if this is something that interest them or not. The whole process is not perfect, and will never be, but this is probably the best we have so far.

There is actually no peer review at cureus. Imagine blind leading the blind. Imagine you being a well read author and a published one, would you have time to review and unknown manuscript in 2 days? No way! If impact factor is not "the measure" why do people crave to be published in big journals? The answer lies in what you want from the publication, just an easy quick fix to be published in "something" that is indexed in pubmed. That's all, then yes, go for cureus, otherwise, no. Just my opinion. People get published in online journals that are wiped off the internet in some years, it's their choice. I am not judging anyone for it, on this forum I wanted to know what the "experts" think of it. Obviously people who publish in it are going to say good things about it, there is a very good reason why they chose it in the first place. Maybe they did know that the publication would be suited to only cureus, maybe they had been denied publication in other journals, n because pubmed indexation is "considered" a huge feat, they decided to get published there. Impact factor was , is and would continue to be the measure for assessing publications. Imagine writing n throwing things in an electrical bun! What use does it have if no1 reads or builds upon your findings. That is what impact factor judges, citations! Referencing! That is when an "actual peer" who knows about the subject, reads ,reviews and tries to make some sense out of the publication.

Just because the peer review in Cureus is quick does not mean it does not exist. The “experts” that I heard from in national meetings (when we used to have those!) will tell you that in 2 days you can actually review much more than one manuscript! The more expert you are, the quicker you will be in reviewing manuscripts (and enjoying it during the process). What Im trying to say is that impact factor (alone) is not the only way to go and is not without limitations, but yes it is (one) important factor that we should look for.

Does is it indexed in scopus?

Hi Hossein Neamatzadeh

No, but it is indexed in PubMed and Web of Science [1, 2].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2757/

[2] https://bit.ly/2Z8BKkt

I consider Cureus a good journal. It is a modern, agile and open access channel and I hope that the future trend of scientific publication will converge to such methods.

It is interesting to note that traditional scientific journals and editors continuously operate in the shadow to suppress or minimize the credibility and impact index of all Open Access scientific journals. It is time to reconsider such a myth.

Please consider the following information: The Government of Pedro Sánchez (Spain) has injected more than 7 million in the editor of the scientific journal "The Lancet", where recently his health spokesman Fernando Simón published a letter that praised his management and criticized his questioning from politics or the press because "they harm the response» to the pandemic. The case was widely commented on by Spain's scientific community and even to the public in general.

The source is here:

https://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-lancet-publico-autodefensa-simon-tras-recibir-editor-casi-7-millones-sanchez-202102051737_noticia.html#vca=mod-lo-mas-p4&vmc=leido&vso=abc-es&vli=portada.portada&vtm_loMas=si

And the previous case was not unique. Please, remember the Lancet retraction of an article based on false data regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine. After a lot of complaints from the scientific community, the article was correctly retracted. More details here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

In contrast to Cureus or the open-access journal in general, nobody questions the reputation of Lancet. Please, I am not criticizing Lancet, I am only presenting two cases to promote a fair reflection regarding good Open Access Journals.

By the way, there is a CiteFactor for Cureus that can be accessed here:

https://www.citefactor.org/impact-factor/impact-factor-of-journal-Cureus.php

I fully share Dr. Emre Pakdemirli 's comments.

Cureus journal is indexed in PubMed and Web of Science.

So it is not bad.

In my opinion,Cureus´s peer-reviewing system is rigourus and exhaustive.

Beyond Cureus Journal, the peer-reviewing process should be fully public in all indexed journals

What is your definition of exhaustive? I agree to disagree with cureus publications being credible. Just an indexation in pubmed does not make that journal credible. Plus if impact factors are a joke to people who publish in that journal why are you people so bothered about giving clarifications for its lack of an impact factor? There is not even a single person in this discussion who said good things about them but has not published with them. Publishing with them and then saying good things is ok, and justifiable because obviously they published your research. But the lack of an impact factor makes it unreliable. If it is that good why can't it get an impact factor? Just food for thought!

I used the term exhaustive because in my experience as a reviewer, the manuscripts were completely reviewed including several rounds with author-reviewer interaction. Reviewers are always two or more, showing excellent expertise to support their opinions. The final result was a much better paper.I didn´t publish in Cureus and I don´t know the rate of rejected manuscripts.

The impact factor is essential and should be improved.e.g : a lot of editors coauthored several papers published in each issue of his journal.Is it ethically fair?

How do you know that the process is rigorous if you didn't publish in it?If you reviewed for them, you were indirectly involved with those publications. Plus how credible is a journal that allows editors to co-author on several articles in each issue? You are making exact sense in answering why the credibility of this journal is questionable. Plus maybe that's why it doesn't have an impact factor!

Of course,in some way I´m involved as a reviewer and that job is the source of my opinions.

About editors as coauthors, yours was a misinterpretation.In my experience, I haven´t seen it happen in Cureus.

I don´t think this discussion is going to get to any satisfactory ending for either of us.So, I suggest respecting each other´s opinion.Personally I can assure you I don´t ¨ joke¨ when I do my revisions.

Conflict of interest there. It is not a neutral discussion. But I actually got a satisfactory answer and majorly thanks to you.

Well, I think it has a different approach towards publications, and while working often as a reviewer I myself found it different than others, everything is digitalised and many mistakes are highlighted upon submission. Referring your point, that it accept every article submitted is not the fact, I have published a paper and the next one is in line but two of my colleague's manuscripts are rejected, which I considered at par or better than mine. Furthermore, the impact factor for it has recently been calculated and it hovers around at 1.1, which is quite acceptable.

How has that been calculated? An impact factor cannot be calculated until and unless a journal satisfies certain criteria! However I do agree with you that the journal is different.

I do not measure the value of a publication by the journal where it was published. It is the weight of the idea to the field of knowledge that should be used as the metric, and sometimes it is not possible to evaluate that immediately.

From the dominant "Impact Factor" point of view, Fermat's Last Theorem would be a Zero value publication. He wrote the theorem in the margin of a book!

Do you know that the "Bose-Einstein Statistics" was the personal idea of Satyendra Nath Bose but he had his article rejected by Philosophical Magazine? He had to send the article to Einstein who translated it into German and was immediately published in Zeitschrift für Physik (1924). The name Satyendra Nath Bose was not good enough for the fancy journals.

Seven years ago, in 2013, Randy Schekman, a Nobel prize winner, declared that he would no longer be publishing his papers in the big prestigious “luxury” journals.

Writing in the Guardian, Schekman raises serious concerns over the journals' practices and calls on others in the scientific community to take action.

Schekman criticises Nature, Cell and Science for artificially restricting the number of papers they accept, a policy he says stokes demand "like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags." He also attacks a widespread metric called an "impact factor", used by many top-tier journals in their marketing.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

Very interesting comments. I specifically loved the analogy to the limited edition handbags by fashion designers! But, the nobel prize winner declared that after writing for the said journals.

@Samia Hussain, everyone has their own mind sets, and they think in their own perspective, I think the Nobel laureate would have observed something special in those journals, and that's why he took the decision on that basis. Me, you, and all around here cant foresee things that way, hence we can only just covet to be a laureate, but cant. If he has taken the decision on that basis, we shall agree and respect, else we are questioning his nominee as a Nobel Laureate.

Regards

@ bilal Khan he did not endorse cureus though. It's like twisting stuff. He said that for nature that charges an exorbitant sum for each publication. And nobel prize is not given only for research it's given for ideas and not all nobel nominees think so that impact factors are useless. Let's put things into perspective first. Before generalizing stuff to a journal that is to date "shady"!

@Samia Husain! I construed it as if he did, like you said, he declared the winner after writing for the said journal. Anyhow, I expostulate publishing in a journal, if one is not satisfied with.

Regards

@ bilal Khan I assume you did not understand what he said! Or you have misconstrued it and lost the point altogether, but it is ok . A wise man once said that people only see things through their respective lens! As far as the journal is considered I don't intend to publish in cureus. We have already established that. People who have reviewed/written in that journal should say good things about it because after all they published their manuscripts, which I believe now we're not being published by any other respectable journal. I have written in local journals, international journals, big european journals, journals indexed in pubmed,journals with impact factors and those without. I very well understand the differences but I do not endorse any of them. Sometimes some manuscripts are not suited for some journals, because they are not discussing novel Ideas or innovation and good authors learn from it instead of finding a loop-hole! By loop hole I mean a journal that is indexed but has no proper review system or jmpact factor. Moreover, this discussion was not started to demean any author/reviewer, I just wanted to discuss the thoughts/reasons that lead people to opt publishing in it. But the sad thing is that most authors/reviewers from 'that journal' are only happy because they do not have to wait, or suffer a rejection, plus they get a readymade template to

temper ! Which in my opinion is shallow!