Integrity of Databases for Literature Searches in Nursing: Avoiding Predatory Journals

Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity

Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.

Theories, determinants, and intervention models and approaches on inequalities of undernutrition amongst under fives: A literature review

Background and Aims

One of the greatest public health problems of the 21st century is undernutrition in children under the age of 5 years (CAUFY). Globally, over 232 million CUAFY are undernourished and approximately 45% of mortality in this population are undernutrition-induced. This paper reviewed and critically explained the factors perpetuating undernutrition in CUAFY in the global space. It further explained the multi-level determinants that influence health inequalities and consequently exacerbate undernutrition amongst CUAFY globally. It also went further to explain the intervention models and approaches that can be used to tackle undernutrition in CUAFY.

Methods/Literature Search Strategy

Demiris et al.'s approach to narrative review was utilized for this paper. Relevant articles on child nutrition were retrieved from multiple credible databases and websites of foremost health organizations. Using an iterative process, multiple combinations of search terms were done by stringing relevant key terms and their synonyms with Boolean Operators. This process was constantly refined to align search results with the study aim. Database search produced relevant and resourceful publications which were utilized to develop this review.

Results

The global burden of undernutrition remains high, especially in Oceania with the highest prevalence of stunting and wasting (41.4% and 12.5%), with Africa and Asia following closely. Malnutrition eradication is a global health issue of high priority as demonstrated by the "Goal 2" of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the United Nations (UN) Decade of Action on Nutrition 2016-2025. The review identified no significant positive outcome from previous interventions due to the endemic health inequalities. Determinants of the multi-level health inequalities associated with undernutrition in CUAFY, and probable solutions are explained with theoretical models of health inequalities. A diagonal intervention approach was proposed as a viable solution to ending undernutrition in CUAFY.

Conclusion

The application of relevant theoretical models and context-specific intervention approaches can be utilized by stakeholders to close the existing inequality gaps, thereby reducing undernutrition amongst CUAFY globally.

The learning needs and clinical requirements of post graduate critical care nursing students in rural and regional contexts: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to establish the learning needs and clinical requirements of postgraduate critical care nursing students preparing for clinical practice in rural and regional contexts.

REVIEW METHOD USED

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Published and unpublished empirical studies.

REVIEW METHODS

A scoping review based on database searches (CINAHL and Medline) using Aromataris and Munn's four-step search strategy, plus subsequent forward reference search strategy was undertaken, applying predetermined selection criteria. The review aligned to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Review. Studies were uploaded into Endnote 20© for storage and into Covidence 2.0© for data extraction. Screening was undertaken by a primary reviewer, with a secondary reviewer evaluating the studies identified as relevant by the first reviewer. Qualitative codes were derived, and reflexive thematic analysis synthesised the results of the review, using Braun and Clarke's six-phase process.

RESULTS

Nine foundational learning needs for critical care nursing students were extracted from the literature. The nine established foundational learning needs were: behavioural attributes/personal base; critical thinking and analysis; ethical practice; identification of risk; leadership, collaboration, and management; professional practice; provision and coordination of clinical care; research knowledge, standards of care, and policy development; and the health consumer experience. Discerning learning needs specific to rural and regional critical care nursing students was difficult. Only one study that met the inclusion criteria was identified. This study identified some instances of interest in relation to rural and regional learning needs. These instances were related to preparation of rural students for low-volume, high-stake situations; transfer of critically ill patients; stabilisation and preparation of critically ill patients; and care of specific patient groups such as, critically ill, bariatric, paediatric, obstetric, trauma, and patients with behavioural issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited literature exists within the rural and regional critical care nursing educational context, making it difficult to determine the unique learning needs of students within this group. This scoping review lays the groundwork for further research into the needs of critical care nursing students situated within the rural and regional context.

Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation

Purpose

Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality.

Methods

Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed.

Results

It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals.

Conclusion

To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.

PURPOSE

To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.

RESULTS

The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.

CONCLUSION

The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence

OBJECTIVES

Paper mills, companies that write scientific papers and gain acceptance for them, then sell authorships of these papers, present a key challenge in medicine and other healthcare fields. This challenge is becoming more acute with artificial intelligence (AI), where AI writes the manuscripts and then the paper mills sell the authorships of these papers. The aim of the current research is to provide a method for detecting fake papers.

METHODS

The method reported in this article uses a machine learning approach to create decision trees to identify fake papers. The data were collected from Web of Science and multiple journals in various fields.

RESULTS

The article presents a method to identify fake papers based on the results of decision trees. Use of this method in a case study indicated its effectiveness in identifying a fake paper.

CONCLUSIONS

This method to identify fake papers is applicable for authors, editors, and publishers across fields to investigate a single paper or to conduct an analysis of a group of manuscripts. Clinicians and others can use this method to evaluate articles they find in a search to ensure they are not fake articles and instead report actual research that was peer reviewed prior to publication in a journal.

Understanding the Experiences of Clinicians Accessing Electronic Databases to Search for Evidence on Pain Management Using a Mixed Methods Approach

The act of searching and retrieving evidence falls under the second step of the EBP process-tracking down the best evidence. The purpose of this study is to understand the competencies of clinicians accessing electronic databases to search for evidence on pain management using a mixed methods approach. Thirty-seven healthcare professionals (14 occupational therapists, 13 physical therapists, 8 nurses, and 2 psychologists) who are actively involved in pain management were included. This study involved two parts (a qualitative and a quantitative part) that ran in parallel. Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide (qualitative data); data were transcribed verbatim. During the interview, participants were evaluated in comparison to a set of pre-determined practice competencies using a chart-stimulated recall (CSR) technique (quantitative data). CSR was scored on a 7-point Likert scale. Coding was completed by two raters; themes across each of the competencies were integrated by three raters. Seven themes evolved out of the qualitative responses to these competencies: formulating a research question, sources of evidence accessed, search strategy, refining the yield, barriers and facilitators, clinical decision making, and knowledge and awareness about appraising the quality of evidence. The qualitative results informed an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in the competencies evaluated. In conclusion, using a mixed methods approach, we found that clinicians were performing well with their basic literature review skills, but when it came to advanced skills like using Boolean operators, critical appraisal and finding levels of evidence they seem to require more training.

Best practices in scholarly publishing for promotion or tenure: Avoiding predatory journals

BACKGROUND

Predatory publishing has adverse impacts on scientific literature including nursing literature. These publishers have been described as having questionable publication standards. Many faculty have expressed challenges associated with assessing publisher and journal quality.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines offering explicit instructions and guidance for faculty on assessing the quality of publishers and journals.

METHOD

An appointed committee representing research, teaching, and practice scholarship performed a literature review on the topics of journal quality, scholarship for promotion and tenure, and best practices for evaluating scholarship in academic institutions.

RESULTS

The committee developed additional guidance to support and assist faculty assessing journal quality. Based on these guidelines, the faculty retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines for each of the research, teaching, and practice tracks were edited to reflect these practices.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines provided clarity for our promotion and tenure review committee and faculty.

How to identify predatory journals in a search: Precautions for nurses

ABSTRACT

Nursing journals offer important content on new practices and approaches to care. Unfortunately, predatory journals that use unsavory publication practices have emerged. This article shares guidance to help nurses effectively appraise information and their sources, distinguish predatory from legitimate journals, and conduct due diligence.

Publishing in Predatory Journals: Guidelines for Nursing Faculty in Promotion and Tenure Policies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which academic promotion and tenure (APT) criteria and guidelines in schools of nursing recognize predatory publishing. This assessment included an analysis of APT documents looking specifically for guidance about predatory publications by faculty in schools of nursing.

DESIGN

This study used a cross-sectional, descriptive design and was conducted in 2020.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was used to collect data from two sources. Data were extracted from APT documents for 92 research-intensive universities found online and specifically focused on documents for universities and for schools of nursing in the United States. Interviews were conducted with a subsample of academic administrators (n = 10) from selected schools.

FINDINGS

The majority (57%; n = 50) of APT documents reviewed addressed quality of the journals in which faculty publish. However, very nonspecific terms, such as "high quality" or "peer reviewed" were used. None of the documents reviewed (n = 88) included any reference to predatory journals. Deans who were interviewed validated the analysis of the APT documents. While most deans reported faculty were aware of predatory journals and the risks of publishing in them, formal guidelines for consequences for publishing in predatory journals were not developed or available.

CONCLUSION

This study examined how schools of nursing in research-intensive universities address the issue of predatory journals. APT criteria do not provide guidance to faculty and promotion and tenure committees about issues related to predatory publications as low-quality publication outlets. Recommendations for APT committees, mentors, and faculty are provided.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians rely on researchers, many of whom are faculty, to publish rigorous studies that produce evidence they can translate into practice. One measure of the quality of a study's findings is where the paper is published and reflects the level of peer review it has been through. Faculty who publish in predatory journals may not have had their work reviewed by experts; evidence produced may or may not be adequate for translation to guide nursing practice.

Jourchain: using blockchain to avoid questionable journals

Scholarly publishing currently is faced by an upsurge in low-quality, questionable "predatory/hijacked" journals published by those whose only goal is profit. Although there are discussions in the literature warning about them, most provide only a few suggestions on how to avoid these journals. Most solutions are not generalizable or have other weaknesses. Here, we use a novel information technology, i.e., blockchains, to expose and prevent the problems produced by questionable journals. Thus, this work presented here sheds light on the advantages of blockchain for producing safe, fraud-free scholarly publishing.