'Predatory' journals lack scientific impact, says study

Physics World ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Michael Allen
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals

scholarly journals How Frequently Are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited

Publications ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo-Christer Björk ◽  
Sari Kanto-Karvonen ◽  
J. Tuomas Harviainen
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Citation Statistics

Predatory journals are Open Access journals of highly questionable scientific quality. Such journals pretend to use peer review for quality assurance, and spam academics with requests for submissions, in order to collect author payments. In recent years predatory journals have received a lot of negative media. While much has been said about the harm that such journals cause to academic publishing in general, an overlooked aspect is how much articles in such journals are actually read and in particular cited, that is if they have any significant impact on the research in their fields. Other studies have already demonstrated that only some of the articles in predatory journals contain faulty and directly harmful results, while a lot of the articles present mediocre and poorly reported studies. We studied citation statistics over a five-year period in Google Scholar for 250 random articles published in such journals in 2014 and found an average of 2.6 citations per article, and that 56% of the articles had no citations at all. For comparison, a random sample of articles published in the approximately 25,000 peer reviewed journals included in the Scopus index had an average of 18, 1 citations in the same period with only 9% receiving no citations. We conclude that articles published in predatory journals have little scientific impact.

Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Potential of Helenalin

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-142
Author(s):  
Priyanka Kriplani ◽  
Kumar Guarve
Keyword(s):  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Active Constituent ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Isolation Techniques ◽  
Anti Cancer ◽  
Prevention Of Cancer ◽  
Synthetic Derivatives

Background: Arnica montana, containing helenalin as its principal active constituent, is the most widely used plant to treat various ailments. Recent studies indicate that Arnica and helenalin provide significant health benefits, including anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, antioxidant, cholesterol-lowering, immunomodulatory, and most important, anti-cancer properties. Objective: The objective of the present study is to overview the recent patents of Arnica and its principal constituent helenalin, including new methods of isolation, and their use in the prevention of cancer and other ailments. Methods: Current prose and patents emphasizing the anti-cancer potential of helenalin and Arnica, incorporated as anti-inflammary agents in anti-cancer preparations, have been identified and reviewed with particular emphasis on their scientific impact and novelty. Results: Helenalin has shown its anti-cancer potential to treat multiple types of tumors, both in vitro and in vivo. It has also portrayed synergistic effects when given in combination with other anti- cancer drugs or natural compounds. New purification/isolation techniques are also developing with novel helenalin formulations and its synthetic derivatives have been developed to increase its solubility and bioavailability. Conclusion: The promising anti-cancer potential of helenalin in various preclinical studies may open new avenues for therapeutic interventions in different tumors. Thus clinical trials validating its tumor suppressing and chemopreventive activities, particularly in conjunction with standard therapies, are immediately required.

Information and scientific impact of Advanced Therapies in the age of mass media: an Altmetrics-based analysis of Tissue Engineering. (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Santisteban ◽  
Julia Moran ◽  
Miguel Ángel Martín Piedra ◽  
Antonio Campos Muñoz ◽  
José Antonio Moral Muñoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Mass Media ◽  
Prediction Equation ◽  
Factorial Analysis ◽  
Online Media ◽  
Research Groups ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Tissue engineering (TE) constitutes a multidisciplinary field aiming to construct artificial tissues to regenerate end-staged organs. Its development has taken placed since the last decade of the 20th century, entailing a clinical revolution. In this sense, TE research groups have worked and shared relevant information in the mass media era. Thus, it would be interesting to study the online dimension of TE research and to compare it with traditional measures of scientific impact. OBJECTIVE To evaluate TE online dimension from 2012 to 2018 by using metadata obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) and Altmetrics and to develop a prediction equation for the impact of TE documents from Almetrics scores. METHODS We have analyzed 23,719 TE documents through descriptive and statistical methods. First, TE temporal evolution was exposed for WoS and fifteen online platforms (News, Blogs, Policy, Twitter, Patents, Peer review, Weibo, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, F1000, Q&A, Video and Mendeley readers). The 10 most-cited TE original articles were ranked according to WoS citations and the Altmetric Attention Score. Second, in order to better comprehend TE online framework, a correlation and factorial analysis were performed based on the suitable results previously obtained for the Bartlett Sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin tests. Finally, the liner regression model was applied to elucidate the relation between academy and online media and to construct a prediction equation for TE from Altmetrics data. RESULTS TE dynamic shows an upward trend in WoS citations, Twitter, Mendeley Readers and Altmetric Scores. However, WoS and Altmetrics rankings for the most cited documents clearly differs. When compared, the best correlation results were obtained for Mendeley readers and WoS (ρ=0.71). In addition, the factorial analysis identified six factors that could explain the previously observed differences between TE academy, and the online platforms evaluated. At this point, the mathematical model constructed is able to predict and explain more than the 40% of TE WoS citations from Altmetrics scores. CONCLUSIONS The scientific information related to the construction of bioartificial tissues increasingly reaches society through different online media. Because of the focus of TE research importantly differs when the academic institutions and online platforms are compared, it could be stated that basic and clinical research groups, academic institutions and health politicians should take it into account in a coordinated effort oriented to the design and implementation of adequate strategies for information diffusion and population health education.

Racial Inequality in Academia: Systemic Origins, Modern Challenges, and Policy Recommendations

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-18
Author(s):  
Cydney H. Dupree ◽  
C. Malik Boykin
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
Quality Education ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Protest Movements ◽  
Recruitment And Retention ◽  
Ideal World ◽  
Future Leaders

In an ideal world, academia serves society; it provides quality education to future leaders and informs public policy—and it does so by including a diverse array of scholars. However, research and recent protest movements show that academia is subject to race-based inequities that hamper the recruitment and retention of scholars of color, reducing scientific impact. This article provides critical systemic context for racism in academia before reviewing research on psychological, interpersonal, and structural challenges to reducing racial inequality. Policy challenges include (a) the cultivation of harmful stereotypes, (b) the education of racially ignorant future leaders, and (c) the dedication of resources to science that informs only a few, rather than many. Finally, recommendations specify critical features of hiring, retention, transparency, and incentives that can diversify academia, create a more welcoming environment to scholars of color, and maximize the potential for innovative and impactful science.

Publishing in Predatory Journals: Guidelines for Nursing Faculty in Promotion and Tenure Policies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion E. Broome ◽  
Marilyn H. Oermann ◽  
Leslie H. Nicoll ◽  
Julee B. Waldrop ◽  
Heather Carter‐Templeton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Faculty ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Promotion And Tenure

scholarly journals The link between ethnic diversity and scientific impact: the mediating effect of novelty and audience diversity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jielan Ding ◽  
Zhesi Shen ◽  
Per Ahlgren ◽  
Tobias Jeppsson ◽  
David Minguillo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Mediating Effect ◽  
Path Modeling ◽  
Control Variables ◽  
Scientific Impact ◽  
Subject Categories ◽  
Sound Management ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractUnderstanding the nature and value of scientific collaboration is essential for sound management and proactive research policies. One component of collaboration is the composition and diversity of contributing authors. This study explores how ethnic diversity in scientific collaboration affects scientific impact, by presenting a conceptual model to connect ethnic diversity, based on author names, with scientific impact, assuming novelty and audience diversity as mediators. The model also controls for affiliated country diversity and affiliated country size. Using path modeling, we apply the model to the Web of Science subject categories Nanoscience & Nanotechnology, Ecology and Information Science & Library. For all three subject categories, and regardless of if control variables are considered or not, we find a weak positive relationship between ethnic diversity and scientific impact. The relationship is weaker, however, when control variables are included. For all three fields, the mediated effect through audience diversity is substantially stronger than the mediated effect through novelty in the relationship, and the former effect is much stronger than the direct effect between the ethnic diversity and scientific impact. Our findings further suggest that ethnic diversity is more associated with short-term scientific impact compared to long-term scientific impact.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons – results from an online survey in Germany

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Maurer ◽  
Nike Walter ◽  
Tina Histing ◽  
Lydia Anastasopoulou ◽  
Thaqif El Khassawna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Abstract Background Along with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Methods In an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor. Results Three hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the “Directory of Open Access Journals” (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs. Conclusion The impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document