Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
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 publication...
| Publicado en: | Journal of the Medical Library Association Vol. 107; no. 1; pp. 57 - 62 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | research Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
University of Pittsburgh, University Library System
Jan2019
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=134089906&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 134089906 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15365050 PI8 jtl: Journal of the Medical Library Association issn: 15365050 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jan2019 vid: 107 iid: 1 pid: 60406 pub: University of Pittsburgh, University Library System place: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania artinfo: ui: 134089906 134089906 134089906 10.5195/jmla.2019.491 134089906 ppf: 57 ppct: 5 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. aug: au: Ross-White, Amanda Godfrey, Christina M. Sears, Kimberley A. Wilson, Rosemary affil: Associate Librarian, Bracken Health Sciences Library, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada sug: subj: Publishing Standards Citation Analysis Medical Writing Human Peer Review Edit and Review Standards Professional Practice, Evidence-Based Databases Writing for Publication Standards Predatory Open Access Publishing Consensus Manuscripts Quality Assessment Publication Components ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|