An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625

Felix Althaus, Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion

{"title":"An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.","authors":"Felix Althaus, Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The proliferation of predatory journals (PJs) poses challenges to the integrity and reliability of scientific research. This study provides a comprehensive overview of studies assessing predatory practices in the biomedical sciences and the evaluation of their methodologies.Methods: We systematically searched three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. We included review-type studies published in English that assessed PJs within biomedical fields. We analyzed the characteristics of PJs, and methodological quality using the advice of \"a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews\" (AMSTAR-2) and the Cochrane Handbook.Results: Fifty articles were included in the analysis. The first review of PJs was published in 2015. More than 80% of the reviews were published from 2018 onwards. The studies most often focused on the lack of an adequate peer review process (33/50), time to publication (30/50), and level of article processing charge (27/50). Concerning methodological quality, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; 30 of the studies did not meet any of them.Conclusions: The methodological quality of the existing reviews was rather low, and the results of the present study may help researchers improve the methodological quality of future reviews on this topic.","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The proliferation of predatory journals (PJs) poses challenges to the integrity and reliability of scientific research. This study provides a comprehensive overview of studies assessing predatory practices in the biomedical sciences and the evaluation of their methodologies.

Methods: We systematically searched three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. We included review-type studies published in English that assessed PJs within biomedical fields. We analyzed the characteristics of PJs, and methodological quality using the advice of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) and the Cochrane Handbook.

Results: Fifty articles were included in the analysis. The first review of PJs was published in 2015. More than 80% of the reviews were published from 2018 onwards. The studies most often focused on the lack of an adequate peer review process (33/50), time to publication (30/50), and level of article processing charge (27/50). Concerning methodological quality, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; 30 of the studies did not meet any of them.

Conclusions: The methodological quality of the existing reviews was rather low, and the results of the present study may help researchers improve the methodological quality of future reviews on this topic.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

生物医学领域掠夺性期刊评估研究综述。

目的：掠夺性期刊（PJ）的激增给科学研究的完整性和可靠性带来了挑战。本研究全面概述了对生物医学领域掠夺性行为的评估研究及其方法论评估：我们系统地搜索了三个数据库：方法：我们系统地检索了三个数据库：PubMed、Web of Science 和 Scopus。我们纳入了以英文发表的、对生物医学领域中的剽窃行为进行评估的综述类研究。我们根据 "评估系统性综述的测量工具"（AMSTAR-2）和 Cochrane 手册的建议分析了 PJ 的特点和方法质量：共有 50 篇文章被纳入分析。第一篇关于PJ的综述发表于2015年。80%以上的综述发表于2018年以后。这些研究最常关注的是缺乏充分的同行评审程序（33/50）、发表时间（30/50）和文章处理费用水平（27/50）。在方法论质量方面，没有一项研究符合所有建议项目；30 项研究不符合其中任何一项：结论：现有综述的方法学质量相当低，本研究的结果可能有助于研究人员提高今后有关该主题的综述的方法学质量。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.