scholarly journals Conduct responsible research to escape from predatory journals

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Mohammad Tariqur Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Research Staff ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Responsible Research

Academics and researchers, willingly or unwillingly, continue to fall a “victim” to predatory journals. The entire cascade of moving forward in academia depends on one’s ability to publish papers - as many as possible and in the shortest possible time. Such a requirement for a “number” persuades an academician or a researcher to race for an increased number of papers rather than to ensure the quality of the papers they want to publish. Thanks, but no thanks to the predatory journals - for providing a comfortable avenue for those papers to get published. An effective way out could be to train the academics and create awareness among them to conduct research following the codes of responsible research. Policymakers may also need to consider adopting policies that will not force their academic and research staff to race against time and compromise the codes of responsible research.

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.

Predatory publishing and the Ghana experience: A call to action for information professionals

IFLA Journal ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kodjo Atiso ◽  
Jenna Kammer ◽  
Jenny Bossaller
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Research Scientists

Researchers in developing countries are more likely to publish in predatory journals (Xia et al., 2015). This study investigates the understanding that research scientists in Ghana, a developing country, have about predatory journals and their publishing practices. Using a mixed methods approach, research scientists within one cluster of research organizations in Ghana were asked about their awareness of the characteristics of predatory journals, based on their own experience as a researcher. Their publications were also examined. The results indicate that most of the research scientists in this study are aware of predatory journals and are often solicited by them, but are less aware of tools they can use to determine the quality of a particular publication. In addition, 12% of the articles published that make up 24% of the unique journals in which these researchers published could be considered “predatory”. The findings of this research are significant because they indicate that research scientists may have more awareness of predatory journals than is expected, but that they may lack the training or tools necessary for deciding whether or not a journal is legitimate.

Effectiveness of ASCO’s adverse event reporting decision aid: Results from an interventional study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3065-3065
Author(s):  
Kathryn Finch Mileham ◽  
Andrea D. Buchmeier ◽  
Meredith Kathleen Chuk ◽  
Courtney Davis ◽  
Anne Marie Forest ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Investigational Drug ◽  
Interventional Study ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Safety Signals

3065 Background: Investigators often send adverse event (AE) reports to sponsors that are incorrectly categorized as serious or attributed to the investigational drug. Such errors contribute to a high volume of uninformative IND safety reports that sponsors submit to FDA and all participating investigators, straining stakeholder resources and impeding the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of AE reporting, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid Tool (DAT). Methods: An interventional study with a cross-over design was conducted. Physician investigators and research staff were randomized to receive case studies. Cases were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the DAT. Participants completed a feedback survey. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution were assessed using logistic regression. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Most of the 29 participants reported that the DAT was helpful (93%), improved their decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use it in practice (83%). The DAT did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.46) but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing a serious AE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI: 1.15, 11.4). Conclusions: The DAT shows promise as a method to reduce errors in attribution of AEs, which may help to ensure the detection of valid safety signals. Many participants were experienced clinical trialists, and the DAT may show greater utility as an educational tool for novice investigators, research staff, and students.

scholarly journals THE EFFECTS OF PREDATORY JOURNALS ON QUALITY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Research Fields ◽  
Access Model

Predatory journals as defined by Beall in 2012 are publishers “which publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays” and also publishers that were “dishonest and lack transparency”. Any journal accepts the manuscript without any real and deep evaluation by reviewers are considered as predatory journals. In recent years, many predatory journals have been published worldwide in many research fields. Unfortunately, some of them found in the big and trustable research databases.

An Overview of Publications of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Language Bias ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Cam Use

This chapter presents an overview of the quantity and quality of clinical research in CAM and publication bias. Descriptive studies and their systematic reviews on CAM, e.g., prevalence and reasons for CAM use, have been widely conducted worldwide. The findings of the efficacy of herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture for treating various illnesses, have been highly published. Publications of CAM safety are limited. A number of clinical studies of CAM in treating kidney diseases were lower than other illnesses. Studies of Ayurveda and other CAMs are still lacking. The quality of CAM publications is described based on systematic reviews of assessing CAM publications. Publication bias is explained in terms of selective publications and location bias, language bias and conflict of interest. The mainstream journals are more likely to publish positive findings. Predatory open access and recommendations for assessing predatory journals are addressed in this chapter.

Comparison Between Quality of Care Provided by Trained Feeding Assistants and Certified Nursing Assistants During Between-Meal Supplementation in Long-Term Care Settings

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 1391-1410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily K. Hollingsworth ◽  
Emily A. Long ◽  
Sandra F. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Staff ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Nursing Assistants ◽  
Certified Nursing Assistants ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Trained Staff ◽  
Feeding Assistance

The purpose of this study was to compare the quality of feeding assistance provided by trained non-nursing staff with care provided by certified nursing assistants (CNAs). Research staff provided an 8-hr training course that met federal and state requirements to non-nursing staff in five community long-term care facilities. Trained staff were assigned to between-meal supplement and/or snack delivery for 24 weeks. Using standardized observations, research staff measured feeding assistance care processes between meals across all study weeks. Trained staff, nurse aides, and upper level staff were interviewed at 24 weeks to assess staff perceptions of program impact. Trained staff performed significantly better than CNAs for 12 of 13 care process measures. Residents also consumed significantly more calories per snack offer from trained staff ( M = 130 ± 126 [ SD] kcal) compared with CNAs ( M = 77 ± 94 [ SD] kcal). The majority of staff reported a positive impact of the training program.

scholarly journals On the dark side of open access and new expectations of scientific productivity in adult education research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Vetter ◽  
Michael Schemmann
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Adult Education ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Scientific Productivity ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Dark Side ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Predatory Publishing

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to explore international adult education research in the context of predatory publishing or predatory journals. The paper presents empirical characteristics of predatory journals, determines the quantitative occurrence of predatory journals in the field of adult education by means of a catalogue of criteria, takes a closer look at the authors of adult education contributions identified, and examines the content and quality of the contributions. The article deals with the phenomenon of predatory publishing, an unintended side effect of the Open Access movement, and thus operates in the context of Open 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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document