Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-01-05 DOI:10.1186/s12909-024-05024-x
Owen W Tomlinson
{"title":"Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review","authors":"Owen W Tomlinson","doi":"10.1186/s12909-024-05024-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to ‘predatory publishers’– groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base. A rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified. After searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes– understanding, and utilisation– of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services. There remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory publishers.","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"48 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05024-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Academic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to ‘predatory publishers’– groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base. A rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified. After searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes– understanding, and utilisation– of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services. There remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory publishers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学教育中的掠夺性出版:快速范围界定审查
学术出版是学术交流的基石,但不幸的是,它容易被滥用,"掠夺性出版商 "应运而生--它们采用激进的营销策略,缺乏方法和道德,并绕过同行评审。防止这些掠夺性出版商渗入学术活动非常重要,必须对学生进行这方面的培训,以提高他们的意识并减少使用。这一问题在医学生中的影响范围尚不清楚,因此本研究试图对现有文献基础的广度进行研究。我们按照经过改编的 PRISMA 指南进行了快速范围界定审查。系统地检索了六个数据库(ASSIA、EBSCO、Ovid、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science)中与掠夺性出版和医学生相关的内容。在在线审稿软件的帮助下,对结果进行了单一筛选。对结果数据进行了叙述性描述,并确定了共同主题。经过搜索和筛选,共纳入了五项研究,代表了 1338 名学生。确定了两个主导主题--对掠夺性出版商的理解和利用。这些主题表明,医学生普遍没有意识到掠夺性出版的问题,少数学生已经或将考虑使用他们的服务。医学生对掠夺性出版商造成的威胁仍然缺乏了解。未来在这一领域的研究和教育需要重点关注让医学生了解这一问题,以及与掠夺性出版商合作的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Serendipity, support and equity: a qualitative study examining career initiation in medical education. Educational aspects of artificial intelligence in oral and maxillofacial radiology: insights from a scoping review. Perspectives of final-year medical students in Singapore on clinical role models: a mixed methods study. Performance comparison of large language models on pediatric dentistry questions in the Turkish dentistry specialization examination. Challenges, merits, and demerits of curriculum co-creation in a private sector dental college: an interventional phenomenological study from Pakistan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1