scholarly journals Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e026516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D Cobey ◽  
Agnes Grudniewicz ◽  
Manoj M Lalu ◽  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Hana Raffoul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Predatory Journal ◽  
Email Invitation

ObjectivesTo develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals.DesignAn online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences.ParticipantsUsing Beall’s lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory.ResultsEighty-two authors partially responded (~14% response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish.ConclusionsThis work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

scholarly journals The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 468
Author(s):  
Pentti Nieminen ◽  
Sergio E. Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Data Presentation ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Highly Cited

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

scholarly journals Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Medicine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Bruce ◽  
Anthony Chauvin ◽  
Ludovic Trinquart ◽  
Philippe Ravaud ◽  
Isabelle Boutron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Journals

scholarly journals Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035604
Author(s):  
Cecilia Superchi ◽  
Darko Hren ◽  
David Blanco ◽  
Roser Rius ◽  
Alessandro Recchioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Report Quality ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveTo develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.MethodsWe conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis.ResultsA total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments).ConclusionAssessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

scholarly journals Awareness of predatory journals and open access among medical oncologists: results of an online survey

ESMO Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. e000580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Richtig ◽  
Erika Richtig ◽  
Alexandra Böhm ◽  
Christoph Oing ◽  
Farastuk Bozorgmehr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Number Of Publications

IntroductionPredatory journals harm the integrity of science as principles of ‘good scientific practice’ are bypassed by omitting a proper peer-review process. Therefore, we aimed to explore the awareness of predatory journals among oncologists.MethodsAn online survey among oncologists working in Germany or Austria of various professional surroundings was conducted between October 2018 and April 2019.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-eight participants (55 women (29.2%), 128 men (68.1%)) completed the questionnaire. 41 (21.8%) participants indicated to work in a hospital, 24 (12.8%) in private practice and 112 (59.6%) in a university hospital. 98.9% of participants indicated to actively read scientific articles and consider them in clinical decision-making (96.3%). 90.4% of participants indicated to have scientific experience by publishing papers in journals with peer-review system. The open-access system was known by 170 (90.4%), predatory journals by 131 (69.7%) and Beall’s list by 52 participants (27.7%). Predatory journals were more likely to be known by participants with a higher number of publications (p<0.001), with more high-impact publications (p=0.005) and with recent publications (p<0.001). Awareness of predatory journals did not correlate with gender (p=0.515) or translation of scientific literature into clinical practice (p=0.543).ConclusionsThe problematic topic of ‘predatory journals’ is still unknown by a considerable amount of oncologist, although the survey was taken in a cohort of oncologists with scientific experience. Dedicated educational initiatives are needed to raise awareness of this problem and to aid in the identification of predatory journals for the scientific oncology community.

scholarly journals Relation of Personality to Grades and Grading in Undergraduate Peer Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 9-22
Author(s):  
Jenessa Louise Shaw ◽  
Kenneth Cramer
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Secondary Students ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Personality Factors ◽  
Academic Entitlement ◽  
Post Secondary ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Psychology Course

Peer reviews offer a unique assessment of post-secondary students’ writing, wherein students grade fellow students’ (or peers’) essay submissions according to a provided rubric. Previous research found that students’ personality dimensions were related to the grades that students both gave and received through peer assessment. The present study examined the association between personality factors on grader leniency and grades received during a peer review assignment in an introductory psychology course. Participants completed an online survey to assess academic entitlement, learning/grade orientation, narcissism, and the 5-factor personality traits; these were later joined to peer review grades received and given. Results showed that rater leniency was negatively related to learning orientation, conscientiousness, and grade orientation. Moreover, the strongest predictors of grades received included academic entitlement, conscientiousness, and narcissism. Implications of these findings, plus directions for future research, are discussed.             Keywords: peer review, rater leniency, personality, academic achievement   L’évaluation par les pairs constitue un processus exceptionnel d’évaluation de l’écriture d’étudiants de niveau postsecondaire. Des étudiants notent les rédactions de leurs camarades de classe (leurs « pairs ») en utilisant une grille d’évaluation qui leur est fournie. Des recherches ont montré que les aspects de la personnalité des étudiants ont une incidence sur les notes que ceux-ci donnent ou reçoivent. La présente étude examine le lien entre, d’une part, les facteurs liés à la personnalité et, d’autre part, la clémence des évaluateurs et les notes reçues au cours d’une évaluation par les pairs dans un cours d’introduction à la psychologie. Les participants ont rempli un sondage en ligne pour mesurer leurs attentes en matière de notes, leur intérêt pour l’apprentissage ou pour les notes, leur narcissisme et les cinq traits centraux de la personnalité. Les réponses au sondage ont ensuite été combinées aux évaluations par les pairs que les participants ont rendues et reçues. Les résultats montrent que la clémence de l’évaluateur est liée de façon négative à l’intérêt en matière d’apprentissage, au caractère consciencieux et à l’intérêt pour les notes. Qui plus est, les principaux indicateurs des notes reçues comprennent l’attente de recevoir de bonnes notes, le caractère consciencieux et le narcissisme. L’article examine les conséquences de ces résultats et indique la direction à prendre pour des recherches à venir. Mots clés : évaluation par les pairs, clémence de l’évaluateur, personnalité, rendement universitaire

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as an Intervention Tool to Recover from Language, Swallowing and Attentional Deficits after Stroke: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 176-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Dionísio ◽  
Isabel Catarina Duarte ◽  
Miguel Patrício ◽  
Miguel Castelo-Branco
Keyword(s):  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Stroke Event ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Attentional Deficits ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Stimulation Parameters ◽  
Effective Interventions

Background: Following a stroke event, patients often are severely affected by disabilities that hinder their quality-of-life. There are currently several rehabilitative options and strategies, and it is crucial to find the most effective interventions. The applicability of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the recovery of nonmotor functions such as communication skills, swallowing ability and spatial attention after stroke remains important clinical questions. Summary: We searched PubMed and ISI Web of Science for articles that used repetitive TMS protocols to rehabilitate post-stroke deficits. We analysed qualitatively 38 articles that met the eligibility criteria; of these, 21 dealt with aphasia, 8 with dysphagia, 8 with neglect and 1 with visual extinction. The efficacy of TMS as an intervention for post-stroke rehabilitation of these nonmotor deficits was studied as well as the current limitations were assessed. Key Messages: Most part of the included studies reported statistically significant functional improvements, supporting the use of TMS for the rehabilitation of aphasia, dysphagia and neglect. Future research, with larger sample sizes, is mandatory to confirm its efficacy, determine the optimal stimulation parameters and investigate inter-subject variability.

scholarly journals Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Chun-Man Ho ◽  
Kwok-Kei Mak ◽  
Ren Tao ◽  
Yanxia Lu ◽  
Jeffrey R Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Biomedical Journals

scholarly journals How to Protect the Credibility of Articles Published in Predatory Journals

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Yuki Yamada
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Journal

Predatory journals often prey on innocent researchers who are unaware of the threat they pose. This paper discusses what researchers can do if they unintentionally publish a paper in a predatory journal, including measures to take before submission, during peer review, and after the journal has accepted a manuscript. The specific recommendations discussed are pre-registration, pre-submission peer-review, open peer-review, topping up reviewers, post-publication peer review, open recommendation, and treatment as unrefereed. These measures may help to ensure the credibility of the article, even if it is published in a predatory journal. The present article suggests that an open and multi-layered assessment of research content enhances the credibility of all research articles, even those published in non-predatory journals. If applied consistently by researchers in various fields, the suggested measures may enhance reproducibility and promote the advancement of science.

scholarly journals Editorial Note: Fast Peer Review: A Practice of Predatory Journals or Fair Treatment for Authors?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (27) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jovan Shopovski ◽  
Robert W. McGee ◽  
Daniel B. Hier
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Editorial Note ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
On Line

Despite its weaknesses, peer review is our best gatekeeper of rigorous science. With the advent of on-line and open-access publishing, a vigorous debate has ensued over the timeliness of peer review. Many of us remember, and some still face, long peer review and publishing timeframes. Ware and Mabe (2015) estimated that a reviewer needs from several hours to a day to carefully prepare a peer review. Even so, the time from submission to first decision varies from 8 weeks to 18 weeks and varies by academic discipline and journal. Although the slowness of the peer review process has been critiqued (Lotriet, 2012), long ingrained processes have been slow to change. The development of the open access publishing has brought to the forefront the need to speed the peer review process and reduce the time to publication. However, short peer review times have been cited as one of the hallmarks of predatory journals (Cobey at al. 2018). Some have suggested that a faster and more agile peer review process may undermine the quality of published research (Bagdasarian et al. 2020).

scholarly journals Obesity, Nutrition, and Physical Activity for People with Significant Disabilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-28
Author(s):  
Brianna Grumstrup ◽  
MaryAnn Demchak
Keyword(s):  
Health Knowledge ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Obesity Prevalence ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Significant Disabilities ◽  
Effective Interventions

This review of literature focuses on health issues for individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ID), Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD), and Multiple Impairments (MI). This population has two to three times higher overweight and obesity prevalence than typically developing individuals. Furthermore, they have higher risk for obesity related diseases such as reduced lifespan and quality of life. Contributing factors for higher rates of overweight or obesity, effective interventions, and barriers to health knowledge and practice are discussed. Implications and future research needs are highlighted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document