AUCTORES
Chat with usShort Communication | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2690-8816/026
Shoe StringPodiatry Ormond Beach, Florida,North America, USA
*Corresponding Author: Robert GS, Shoe String Podiatry Ormond Beach, Florida, North America, USA.
Citation: Robert GS, (2020). Opioid Oligopoly and the Seven Deadly Sins (007): J Clinical Research Notes, 1(3); DOI:10.31579/2690-8816/026
Copyright: © 2020 Robert GS. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 06 August 2020 | Accepted: 17 August 2020 | Published: 19 August 2020
Keywords: oligopoly; opioid manufacturers; swamping
An oligopoly is defined as a market structure with a small number of firms that dominate an industry, of which none can keep the other from significantly influencing the market. This market structure is distinctly different from other market forms. In today’s market, the oligopoly structure is the most common market structure. It can be argued that the few pharmaceutical companies who market, manufacture, and distribute opioids all over the world constitute “opioid oligopoly.” Bachtell has reported that dozens of opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and doctors turn a blind eye to the opioid crisis swamping the United States.
An oligopoly is defined as a market structure with a small number of firms that dominate an industry, of which none can keep the other from significantly influencing the market.1 This market structure is distinctly different from other market forms. In today’s market, the oligopoly structure is the most common market structure. It can be argued that the few pharmaceutical companies who market, manufacture, and distribute opioids all over the world constitute “opioid oligopoly.” Bachtell has reported that dozens of opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, and doctors turn a blind eye to the opioid crisis swamping the United States.2
The opioid epidemic is considered to have occurred in three waves. The first wave began in 1991when deaths involving opioids began to sharply rise with an increase in the prescription of opioids or opioid-combination medications for treating pain. This increase was influenced by reassurances from pharmaceutical companies and medical societies or associations, emphasizing the low risk of addiction from using such medications. The second wave of the epidemic started around 2010 when the number of deaths from heroin abuse rapidly increased. Around this time, the early efforts of both state and federal regulators to decrease the prescription of opioid-based medicines began to take effect, making obtaining opioids harder. As a result, opioid users turned to heroin, which is cheaper, more widely available (albeit illegally), and extremely potent. The third wave of the epidemic began around 2013 as deaths related to synthetic opioids such as fentanyl started to increase. However, the most significant rise in opioid-related deaths occurred in 2016; over 20,000 people died from abusing fentanyl and other related drugs. The current consensus is that numerous parties are responsible for the present-day opioid epidemic.3,4 The opioid-related death rates of nearly two decades has significantly increased and out-paced the short-term data regularly cited by policymakers while assessing the epidemic and the effectiveness of the opioid crisis public health response.5,6
The seven deadly sins are human character vices and original sins that date back to early Christian times. Human behaviors or habits can be considered sinful if they directly give birth to other immoralities. Generally, the seven deadly sins are pride, greed, envy, lust, gluttony, sloth, and wrath. These sins are often thought to be abuses or excessive versions of humans’ natural faculties or passions. The main purpose of this narrative is to use and apply each of the seven deadly sins to the opioid oligopoly to illustrate the magnanimity of their contributions to the opioid crisis.
Pride. It is natural for owners to be proud of their businesses, but they should be proud as long as their company utilizes ethical practices. But a question comes to mind: Should a physician, who has a private practice or owns a drug company, apply the principle of “primum non nocere,” which is Latin for “first, do no harm”? Physicians may be influenced by their or other pharmaceutical sales representatives to prescribe a product to promote and market it. Kornfield et al. Published a review7 regarding the promotion of prescription drugs to consumers and providers between 2001 and 2010. They concluded that during this period, branded pharmaceuticals, including Oxycontin®, expended a considerable amount of money on promotion to influence consumers as well as providers.7 Schwartz and Woloshin8 published a data-centered study on medical marketing in the United States during 1997–2016. They found that during this period, the expenditure on medical marketing of drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory testing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion.7 Van Zee used the “Oxycontin® Marketing Plans from 1996–2001” to make a valid argument that the manufacturers of OxyContin® pursued an “aggressive” marketing campaign to promote the use of opioids by emphasizing the greater benefits of choosing opioid-based products over other products without disclosing the involved risks.9 Perhaps, if the opioid oligopoly had tempered their pride with a little humility, they might not have been so aggressive with the promotion and marketing of their opioid-based products and might have realized the harm that they were inflicting and would have organized a mitigating campaign directed at the opioid crisis.
Hoffman has offered a commentary centered on the concept of “privilege vs. right” in the healthcare system and defended the position that this dichotomy is a failed binary, as it has divided the nation.10 The “right” claim strives to redefine the influence of authority in the healthcare system. The efforts to make the right to healthcare into legislation failed because no such right has been either explicitly or implicitly enumerated in the constitution.10 Further, Hoffman asserts that the “privilege” end of the healthcare system has been damaging, shifting the burden away from the physician to the patient.11 It is medicine’s historic privilege to care for any human being, but the obligation has become obscure due to the opportunistic actions of opioid oligopoly.11 Hoffman concludes that both large companies and influential politics in healthcare have become ends unto themselves, and therefore, neither can answer the privilege question nor bear the weight of enforcing physicians’ obligation to give healthcare to patients.11
Greed. It is, of course, natural for any pharmaceutical company to want to make a profit. A company creates jobs and enhances the local-, state-, and national-level economic development. The opioid oligopoly has made a substantial amount of profit from aggressively and successfully marketing its products. This is completely understandable, but then again, it should be acknowledged that opioid oligopoly should have proceeded more prudently. Ellenbogen and Segal published their findings in a report where they examined the differences in the prescription of opioids among general physicians, nurses, and physician assistants.12 They conducted a serial cross-sectional analysis of the data regarding the prescription claims during 2013–2016, which was collected from the public domain of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.12 The analysis showed relatively higher rates of opioid prescriptions among nurses and physician assistants.12 A factor contributing to this high rate of opioid prescription by midlevel healthcare professional may be understood by a piece of recent news, which reports that Purdue Pharma told pharmaceutical representatives “that midlevel providers are critical to our success” and referred to them as “high-value Oxycontin® prescribers” in a 2015–2016 training session.13 From all these, a valid argument can be made that opioid oligopoly got so caught up in attaining greater profits that it forgot to abide by the most important aspect of healthcare—the ethical responsibility to do no harm and to stand as a community leader.
Envy. It can be considered natural for a company to fall into the temptation of envy when it covets its competitor’s business model. Envy wanes the spirit of fair play, and consequently, a company procures the resentment of other businesses of the opioid oligopoly that could have possibly acted as allies to mitigate the opioid crisis fueled by them. Nguyen et al. analyzed Medicare part D prescription data from 2014 to 2016 to study how pharmaceutical payments influence physicians.14 They discovered that prescribers who received opioid-specific payments during that period prescribed 8,784 daily opioid doses per year, which is much more than their peers who did not receive such payments. Such payments resulted in 5,161 additional daily doses of hydrocodone, 3,624 additional daily doses of oxycodone, and 1,124 daily doses of fentanyl, which are more than those prescribed by the physicians who did not receive any incentives from pharmaceutical companies.14 Among the 63,062 physicians who received such payments, a 1% increase in the number of payments resulted in 50 daily opioid doses.14 These authors concluded that physicians who receive direct payments from opioid companies are motivated to prescribe substantially larger quantities of opioid-based medications, particularly hydrocodone and oxycodone.14 The opioid oligopoly offering incentive payments to prescribers of opioids through their agents to calm their envy is a spurious behavior, especially since opioids eventually cause patients harm. Mundipharma and Purdue Pharma are specialized global pharmaceutical companies that are owned by a family who cites statistics to suggest there is a significant unmet need for their opioid products. All clinicians all over the world should consider all the information provided by companies that promote and sell their products as a means to satisfy their greed and tamper down their own envy toward other opioid companies of the oligopoly.
Lust. Lust can be envisioned as a kind of envy but on anabolic steroids. For this argument, “lust” will be defined as the profits garnered by the opioid oligopoly from selling their products.
Purdue Pharma has denied the allegations accusing them of contributing to the opioid crisis and averred that heroin and fentanyl are more responsible than opioid painkillers and that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved labels that bared warnings about the risks of using opioid.15,16 It must be addressed that Purdue Pharma has faced around 2,000 lawsuits over the promotion and advertisement of their product Oxycotin®16 over the last few years.
Marketing to physicians is not the only strategy employed by the opioid oligopoly. Between 2012 and 2017, five opioid manufacturers gave nearly $9 million to 14 patient advocacy groups and medical societies. Although the amount is a mere drop in an ocean of the billions of dollars in opioid revenues garnered by drug companies, the incentives were substantial for the recipients. As a result of the payments, many of them issued guidelines that minimized the caution regarding the addiction risks of prescription opioids. They also extensively lobbied to defeat legislation restricting opioid prescriptions. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its 2016 draft guidelines to limit opioid use, the majority of the opposition constituted organizations that received industry funding.15 Purdue Pharma documents revealed that the company knew that their opioid-based products would cause addiction and that they should consider getting into the business of selling drugs that treat addiction.15,16 The leaders of the company wrote internal documents that suggested that opioids and addiction are naturally linked and Purdue Pharma should consider becoming an “end-to-end pain provider,” providing opioids to addicts to treat pain and then offering suboxone to treat addiction.16 Purdue Pharma proposed “Project Tango,” according to which their team mapped out how patients could get addicted to prescription opioid analgesics such as OxyContin® or heroin, and then, those addicts would become the consumers of the new company’s suboxone.16 Imagine a world where the new normal is a clinician prescribing opioids and where he is also having to prescribe a drug for opioid overdose, such as naloxone, as a standard of care. Are these prescription fees or dispensing prices automatically paid by the opioid oligopoly? The answer is “NO.” The cost is incurred by the patient or the taxpayer. Further, Insys Therapeutics’ drug Subsys®, which is 100 times stronger than morphine, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat patients with cancer who had a “breakthrough” pain that could not be addressed by other medicines. In October 2017, a group of executives of Insys Therapeutics was charged with multiple conspiracies, including racketeering, kickbacks, and fraud, along with two other former executives who pleaded guilty and became cooperating witnesses, as their only goal was to pursue profit. Lastly, Purdue Pharma documents reported a large increase in opioid addiction over the last five years, further noting that opioid addiction can happen to anyone and then suggesting that the market for drugs to treat addiction would be profitable since there is a large unmet need for treating the vulnerable, underserved, and stigmatized patient population suffering from substance abuse, dependence, and addiction.16
For a better understanding of how “lust” influences the desire for garnering profits of the opioid oligopoly, a parallel must be established between the opioid oligopoly and illicit drug dealers. Jacques et al. found that drug dealers typically exploit six types of customers: persons who are uninformed about drugs, first-time or irregular customers, persons who do not have sufficient money on hand to buy drugs, persons who are uninformed about the current market rates, persons who are deemed unlikely to retaliate, persons who are offensive, and persons who are addicted to drugs.17 Dealers target these groups since they perceive them as unlikely repeat customers, not worth the hassle of doing business with, unlikely to realize that they are being ripped off, being in the wrong and thus deserving of payback, and someone unwilling to retaliate or take their money elsewhere.17 The opioid oligopoly views consumers as nameless strangers, first-time or irregular customers who will crave their opioids for decades and do anything to buy them. Further, Tzvetkova et al. have described the strategies used by drug dealers to manage their customers.18 Their investigation revealed that illicit drug dealers engaged in repeated transactions and their relationships with their customers were based on trust and reputation similar to the opioid oligopoly. Illicit drug dealers as well as the opioid oligopoly aimed to sell good-quality drugs to their regular customers who might have become addicted.18 Drug dealers sought to maximize their profits by decreasing the quality of their drugs by mixing them with cutting agents. The quality of the drugs could affect their reputation and thus their profits and position in the market. Given that the opioid oligopoly cannot alter their products, they relied on paying prescribers, targeting clinicians who treat at-risk populations, and misleading providers and regulatory agents to boost opioid sales and increase opioid dependency for satisfying their lust for profit.
Gluttony. The inference can be easily understood that as a business owner, one is supposed to harbor the desire to make as much money as possible. However, to fulfill this desire, the opioid oligopoly builds their business models based on deceit and deception without accounting for the harm they might cause to consumers. They make their profits at the expense of society and have been credited to be the cause of the first wave of the opioid crisis. It should be emphasized yet again that the first wave began in 1991 with a sharp rise in the number of deaths caused by prescription opioids and opioid-combination medicines to treat pain.19,20 It has been seen that this increase was influenced by reassurances from pharmaceutical companies and medical societies or associations that emphasized that the risk of addiction to prescription opioids is very low.19,20 Most of the available interventions proposed by state and national regulators to limit the prescription of opioids and its abuse failed due to the force of the culture emerging from the confluence of interests of the opioid oligopoly that curry favor with influential academics and pain societies.20 To fulfill their all-consuming hunger for profit and prestige, the opioid oligopoly exerted a profound influence on the medical culture causing a paradigm shift toward the over-prescription of opioid products. From the opioid oligopoly’s behavior, it can be understood that ethically conducting business and leaving a fair share for other companies was completely ignored.
Sloth. This sin is the most difficult to define. It is also hard to credit it as a sin since it involves a peculiar jumble of notions, dating from antiquity and including mental, spiritual, pathological, and physical states. For making this argument, sloth will be defined as spiritual apathy. One of the best examples of spiritual apathy showcased by opioid oligopoly can be seen in their documents, which state that these companies knew that their opioid-based products would cause addiction and that they should consider getting into the business of selling drugs to treat addiction caused by their products.15,16 This allows concluding that the opioid oligopoly can profit on both sides by fueling the opioid crisis. A company wrote in its internal documents that opioids and addiction are naturally linked and that it should consider becoming an “end-to-end pain provider,” providing opioids to control pain and then offering suboxone to treat addiction.15,16 Van Zee’s credible argument9 centered on an aggressive marketing campaign for OxyContin® to promote the use of opioids by emphasizing its greater benefits compared to other products without disclosing the risks, which demonstrates the manufacturer’s spiritual apathy toward patients and providers. The website OpenSecrets.org reported that a member of the opioid oligopoly lobbyist spent $470,000 in 2011, $710,000 in 2012, $740,000 in 2013, $810,000 in 2014, $720,000 in 2015, $714,000 in 2016, $940,000 in 2017, $1,120,000 in 2018, and $800,000 in 2019 to protect and boost their opioid sales. Lastly, a group of opioid oligopoly executives from another opioid producer being charged with multiple conspiracies is an excellent example of the opioid oligopoly’s spiritual apathy as well as moral bankruptcy toward humankind.
Wrath. Wrath may be defined as intense vengeful anger, indignation, or retributory punishment for an offense or crime. In the absence of a divine disciplinary regulatory, a great number of plaintiffs within the United States have filed thousands of lawsuits against pharmacies, drug manufacturers, drug distributors, and physicians for their alleged roles in fueling the opioid epidemic. It has been understood that opioid prescription therapy can be associated with substantial known risks. The increase in the number of deaths from prescription opioid overdose deaths has increasingly led to the clinician liability and sanctions.22 While liability can deter the providers from recklessly prescribing opioids, it may also discourage well-intentioned prescribers and compromise patient pain management.22 Medical malpractice lawsuits is the most conventional form of liability that the providers face for any patient injury resulting from the prescribed opioids.22 The widely available opioid-prescribing guidelines can now help courts determine what a reasonable, prudent physician would have done in the same situation.22 Opioid prescribers can be criminally charged under the federal Controlled Substances Act and its state equivalents.23,24 Under this federal law, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) increasingly prosecutes physicians who knowingly and intentionally prescribe drugs outside the usual course of medical practice or for non-legitimate medical purposes.23
Across the United States, various plaintiffs have filed thousands of lawsuits against pharmacies, drug manufacturers, drug distributors, and physicians for their alleged roles in fueling the opioid epidemic. These lawsuits can be related to three areas: (1) A group of more than 2,000 lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical supply chains and individual physicians by counties, cities, Native-American tribes, and individuals across the United States is referred to as the “National Prescription Opiate Litigation”; (2) The cases brought by two counties in Ohio against certain pharmaceutical supply chain, which are referred to as the “Ohio case”; (3) Individual state lawsuits brought by 48 state attorney generals against Purdue Pharma and other drug companies.25
The class-action suit that shows the causal relationship between companies’ business practices and the harm they cause to consumers is assessed at a group level, with the focus on establishing statistical associations between product use and injury. Nevertheless, early attempts to bring class-action suits against opioid manufacturers encountered procedural barriers. Due to the varying factual circumstances surrounding individuals’ opioid use and clinical conditions, judges often deemed the proposed class members to lack substantial common claims.26 As a defense maneuver, Purdue Pharma requested the counties suing them to validate their claims; their request was upheld by the presiding judges.26 Mandatory reporting was required by manufacturers, distributors, or importers. Attorney General Maura Healey’s lawsuit against Purdue Pharma claimed that the company contributed to the opiate explosion. The company allegedly denied and downplayed the addictive potential of its opioid-based products. It was suspected that patients received discounts on purchasing the drugs for the first time, increasing the likelihood that they would stay on the drugs for a longer period of time. Furthermore, it was claimed that the company pressured doctors into prescribing OxyContin® more often, in higher doses, and for longer periods by lavishing them with gifts and money. Settlements were reached with drug distributors, drug makers, and other companies, and they were in the range of $260 million with AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, McKesson, and Teva Pharmaceuticals to just over a $1 million settlement with the small drug distributor Henry Schein Medical in an Ohio case.25 The settlements will be used to reimburse the counties for legal fees and other expenses related to the opioid epidemic, fund local nonprofits and foundations with opioid-related programs, and provide generic products to the counties, including medications used to treat opioid-related substance abuse.25 A $48 billion agreement settled the lawsuits filed by the attorney generals in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas localities against five companies: AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, Johnson & Johnson (J&J), McKesson, and Teva. Under the agreement, the companies would pay a total of $22 billion in cash and contribute $26 billion worth of generic treatments for substance abuse, product distributions, and data-tracking measures.25
Opioid multidistrict litigation: National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL 2804). This national opioid litigation was initially transferred to Cleveland in 2017, and the first bellwether trial was planned to take place in October 2019. The case was settled hours before the trial even began. Judge Polster who presided over the case had set further bellwether tracks for several plaintiffs and defendants who filed lawsuits the next year. Some plaintiff attorneys advocated for a global negotiation to settle the cases of all the entities within the MDL.
Purdue bankruptcy: Purdue Pharma L.P. (Case no. 19-23649). Purdue’s bankruptcy case was initiated in the southern district of New York on September 15, 2019. The case included Purdue Pharma L.P. and 23 other affiliated debtors who each filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The case was to be presided over by the Honorable Robert D. Drain. Through this bankruptcy case, Purdue hoped to halt all lawsuits against it by offering a settlement of $10–12 billion. The Sackler who own Purdue Pharma L.P. family offered $3 billion from their personal fortune. The company continued selling OxyContin® and other medicines with the profits used to pay the plaintiffs. It has offered to donated to addiction treatment and overdose reversal drugs, several of which are still in development.25
According to Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings, curing each of the seven deadly sins is an explicit external standard or something that is based on natural principles and laws, not on social values. His teachings emphasize the abandonment of values that involve wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, religion without sacrifice, and politics without principles.27 As Gandhi pointed out, pride and selfishness will destroy the union between man and God, between man and woman, between man and man, between self and self; this is demonstrated by the behaviors by the opioid oligopoly.27 Perhaps, if the CEOs of opioid oligopoly were humble and servant leaders who sacrificed their pride and shared their power, they could have influenced the parties both inside and outside their oligopoly and potentially mitigated the opioid crisis in today’s society. The opioid oligopoly applied science to its business model without humanity and achieved great riches without real human advancement. Fairness and benevolence in business are the foundation of a free enterprise system.27 It should be remembered that every business transaction poses a moral challenge to ensure that both parties get their fair share.27 The opioid oligopoly conducted business without morality and thus took advantage of prescribers and victimized patients with opioid addiction. Finally, the opioid oligopoly obtained knowledge on opioid addiction and acted without character by promoting a business model to make profit by making their consumers addicted to opioids and treating opioid addiction of the same patient population. oligopoly by relying on, living, and applying the seven deadly sins to their business model allow themselves to hold a license to kill like Ian Fleming’s James Bond. As a British literary and film character, a peerless spy, notorious womanizer, and masculine icon, Bond is a highly unique individual who appears to be of sound mind and strong spirit. However, unfortunately, the opioid oligopoly does not embrace these characteristics and was exceedingly cunning and diabolical and extremely sly in their actions and behaviors leading to the creation of a business model that fueled the opioid crisis.
The main purpose of this commentary is to apply each of the seven deadly sins to the actions of the businesses of opioid oligopoly to illustrate the magnitude of the influence their actions have on the opioid crisis. The title “Opioid Oligopoly and the Seven Deadly Sins (007)” emphasizes the fact that the opioid oligopoly by relying on, living, and applying the seven deadly sins to their business model allow themselves to hold a license to kill like Ian Fleming’s James Bond. As a British literary and film character, a peerless spy, notorious womanizer, and masculine icon, Bond is a highly unique individual who appears to be of sound mind and strong spirit. However, unfortunately, the opioid oligopoly does not embrace these characteristics and was exceedingly cunning and diabolical and extremely sly in their actions and behaviors leading to the creation of a business model that fueled the opioid crisis.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner