scholarly journals Predatory publications in evidence syntheses

2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ross-White ◽  
Christina M. Godfrey ◽  
Kimberley A. Sears ◽  
Rosemary Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Accepted Standard

Objectives: The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.Methods: The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews.Results: The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals.Discussion: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.

scholarly journals Blacklists and Whitelists To Tackle Predatory Publishing: a Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis

mBio ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Strinzel ◽  
Anna Severin ◽  
Katrin Milzow ◽  
Matthias Egger
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Quality Aspects ◽  
Predatory Publishing ◽  
Definition Of

ABSTRACT We aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of quality criteria for scholarly journals by analyzing journals and publishers indexed in blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals and the lists’ inclusion criteria. To quantify content overlaps between blacklists and whitelists, we employed the Jaro-Winkler string metric. To identify topics addressed by the lists’ inclusion criteria and to derive their concepts, we conducted qualitative coding. We included two blacklists (Beall’s and Cabells Scholarly Analytics’) and two whitelists (the Directory of Open Access Journals’ and Cabells Scholarly Analytics’). The number of journals per list ranged from 1,404 to 12,357, and the number of publishers ranged from 473 to 5,638. Seventy-two journals and 42 publishers were included in both a blacklist and a whitelist. Seven themes were identified in the inclusion criteria: (i) peer review; (ii) editorial services; (iii) policy; (iv) business practices; (v) publishing, archiving, and access; (vi) website; and (vii) indexing and metrics. Business practices accounted for almost half of the blacklists’ criteria, whereas whitelists gave more emphasis to criteria related to policy. Criteria could be allocated to four concepts: (i) transparency, (ii) ethics, (iii) professional standards, and (iv) peer review and other services. Whitelists gave most weight to transparency. Blacklists focused on ethics and professional standards. Whitelist criteria were easier to verify than those used in blacklists. Both types gave little emphasis to quality of peer review. Overall, the results show that there is overlap of journals and publishers between blacklists and whitelists. Lists differ in their criteria for quality and the weight given to different dimensions of quality. Aspects that are central but difficult to verify receive little attention. IMPORTANCE Predatory journals are spurious scientific outlets that charge fees for editorial and publishing services that they do not provide. Their lack of quality assurance of published articles increases the risk that unreliable research is published and thus jeopardizes the integrity and credibility of research as a whole. There is increasing awareness of the risks associated with predatory publishing, but efforts to address this situation are hampered by the lack of a clear definition of predatory outlets. Blacklists of predatory journals and whitelists of legitimate journals have been developed but not comprehensively examined. By systematically analyzing these lists, this study provides insights into their utility and delineates the different notions of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing used. This study contributes to a better understanding of the relevant concepts and provides a starting point for the development of a robust definition of predatory journals.

scholarly journals Quality Control through Peer Review Process in Scholarly Communication: Review of Related Literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 248
Author(s):  
Vishnu Kumar Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Related Literature ◽  
Grant Applications ◽  
The Status ◽  
Peer Reviewers

<p>This review of related literature on the theme of peer review process in scholarly communication explains the status of research on periodicals, grant peer review and fellowships. The paper highlights the quality related issues of the scholarly communication and peer review process. Peer reviewers are invited to grant applications or assess fellowship or review manuscript in a peer review process undertake the responsibility for confirming top-level quality and standards in their concerned subject fields. <em></em></p>

scholarly journals Unleashing the potential of preprints

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Pattinson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
New Model ◽  
Open Review

See RECORDING. The rise of preprints in the biomedical sciences has created new opportunities to transform how research is communicated and assessed. As researchers become more accustomed to posting their findings online as soon as they are ready to be shared, the delays that occur during peer review at journals become harder to countenance. If a finding is immediately made available as a preprint, why wait months for the journal version to be published? There is clearly still a need for the quality control that peer review provides, but it does not make sense to continue with the opaque systems that were designed for an age when findings were kept secret until they were published in a journal. In this talk I will discuss the ways in which eLife is working towards a new model to support the open review of preprints, while also developing technology that supports other experiments in this space. 

Faculty Attitudes Towards Open Access Publishing, E-Print Servers and Institutional Repositories

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Wust
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Scholarly Communication ◽  
Faculty Attitudes ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
Institutional Repositories ◽  
Etude Qualitative

This qualitative study investigates how faculty gather information for teaching and research and their opinions on open access approaches to scholarly communication. Despite generally favorable reactions, a perceived lack of peer review and impact factors were among the most common reasons for not publishing through open-access forums.Cette étude qualitative examine comment les membres du corps professoral recueillent l’information pour l’enseignement et la recherche, et leurs opinions envers les approches de la communication scientifique à libre accès. Malgré des réactions généralement favorables, le manque perçu de révision par les pairs et les facteurs d’impact comptent parmi les motifs habituellement évoqués pour ne pas publier sur ces tribunes à libre accès. 

Adverse Effects of Natural Products: A Brief Pre-Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 01 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Pires ◽  
Ana Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Natural Products ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Natural products are commonly used for treating health problems. These products may be associated with adverse events, which are defined as "noxious and unintended response to a medicinal product" by the European Medicine Agency. Objectives: To identify studies describing at least one adverse event (or with potential to promote an adverse event) related to the use of natural products, as well as to describe the involved product(s) and adverse event(s). Methods: A pre-systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Keywords: "natural product(s)" and ["adverse drug reaction(s)" or "adverse effect(s)"]. Screened databases: PubMed, SciELO, DOAJ and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria: papers describing at least one adverse event associated with the use of natural products and published between 2017 and 2019. Exclusion criteria: Repeated studies, reviews and papers written in other languages than English, Portuguese, French or Spanish. Results: 104 studies were identified (20 PubMed; 0 SciELO; 2 DOAJ; 82 Google Scholar), but only 10 were selected (4 PubMed and 6 Google Scholar): 1 in-vitro study; 2 non-clinical studies, 1 study reporting in-vitro and clinical data and 5 studies were cases reports. Globally, 997 reports of adverse drug reactions with natural products were identified, mainly non-severe cases. Conclusion: Since a limited number of studies was found, we conclude that adverse events due to natural products may be underreported, or natural products may have a good safety profile. This review contributes for assuring the safety of natural products consumers, by evaluating the knowledge/information on the potential adverse events and interactions of these products.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review on the experience of informal caregivers for people with a moderate to advanced dementia within a domestic home setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles James ◽  
Catherine Walshe ◽  
Katherine Froggatt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Informal Caregiving ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Advanced Dementia ◽  
Home Setting ◽  
Search Terms

Abstract Background The knowledge about the experience of informal caregivers who provide care to people with moderate to advanced dementia in a domestic home setting is limited. A consequence of long hours of caregiving in addition to dealing with normal challenges of daily living is their experience of a poor quality of life. Some of their experiences may be described in terms of a feeling of powerlessness to make changes during care provision. This feeling may also suggest an experience of moral distress. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise qualitative evidence relating to these experiences. Methods This review adopts a narrative synthesis approach. A search will be conducted for studies written in the English language in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete covering periods from 1984 to present. Included studies will be qualitative or mixed-methods designs. The search terms will be related to dementia and caregivers, and the process will be focused on dementia at the moderate to the advanced stages within the domestic home setting. Reference lists of included papers will also be searched for additional relevant citations. Search terms and strategies will be checked by two independent reviewers. The identification of abstracts and full texts of studies will be done by the author, while the quality and the risk of bias will also be checked by the two independent reviewers. Discussion Psychological distress is cited as an experience reported within informal caregiving. For the caregiver, it is associated with a negative impact on general health. To date, no synthesis exists on the specific experience of informal caregiving for people with moderate to advanced dementia within the domestic home setting. This review considers that variation of accounts contributes to how the informal caregivers’ general experience is explored in future research. This may enable gaps in current knowledge to be highlighted within the wider context of caregiving in the domestic home setting. Systematic review registration This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183649).

scholarly journals Impact of Educational Technology on Teacher Stress and Anxiety: A Literature Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 548
Author(s):  
José-María Fernández-Batanero ◽  
Pedro Román-Graván ◽  
Miguel-María Reyes-Rebollo ◽  
Marta Montenegro-Rueda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Educational Technology ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Teacher Stress ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Technology In The Classroom ◽  
Stress Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analyses

Educational technology has become an increasingly important element for improving the teaching and learning process of students. To achieve these goals, it is essential that teachers have the skills they need to be able to introduce technology into their teaching practice. However, this is often overwhelming and stressful for many of them. The aim of this review was to find out how research on teacher stress and anxiety associated with the use of educational technology was proceeding. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines through the following bibliographic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Sixteen articles were found from the review. The main findings show that teachers present high levels of anxiety or stress due to their use of educational technology in the classroom. Among the conclusions, the need for research on different strategies to prevent the emergence of these anxiety and stress symptoms in teachers stands out.

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 Team functioning and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. McGuier ◽  
David J. Kolko ◽  
Mary Lou Klem ◽  
Jamie Feldman ◽  
Grace Kinkler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Human Service ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Implementation Outcomes ◽  
Services Implementation ◽  
Team Functioning

Abstract Background Healthcare and human services increasingly rely on teams of individuals to deliver services. Implementation of evidence-based practices and other innovations in these settings requires teams to work together to change processes and behaviors. Accordingly, team functioning may be a key determinant of implementation outcomes. This systematic review will identify and summarize empirical research examining associations between team functioning and implementation outcomes in healthcare and human service settings. Methods We will conduct a comprehensive search of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC) for articles published from January 2000 or later. We will include peer-reviewed empirical articles and conference abstracts using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. We will include experimental or observational studies that report on the implementation of an innovation in a healthcare or human service setting and examine associations between team functioning and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes of interest are acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles/abstracts, review full-text articles, and extract data from included articles. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess methodological quality/bias and conduct a narrative synthesis without meta-analysis. Discussion Understanding how team functioning influences implementation outcomes will contribute to our understanding of team-level barriers and facilitators of change. The results of this systematic review will inform efforts to implement evidence-based practices in team-based service settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220168

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document