The ASGLOS Study: A global survey on how predatory journals affect scientific practice

An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences

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.

Decoding Correlations in Predatory Business Practices and Physicians' Strategies Against Daily Predatory Emails

Introduction Predatory journals are marked by inadequate editorial practices and peer review processes, diverging from established global standards in scientific publishing. This article, as a component of the ASGLOS Study, aims to explore the relationship between participant demographics and their experiences with targeted predatory business activities, including their approaches to managing daily predatory emails. Methods To collect the personal experiences of physicians' mailboxes on predatory publishing, a Google Form® survey was designed and disseminated from September 2021 to April 2022. Results A total of 978 responses were analyzed from 58 countries around the world. Data underscores a statistically significant association between academic level and email influx (p<0.001). Participants holding a PhD are disproportionately targeted, receiving more than 10 emails/week compared of those without a PhD (p<0.001). Participants with a more prolific publication record, indicated by higher numbers of overall publications, are inclined to directly delete emails. Also, individuals with a higher H Index (p<0.001) are more prone to occasionally responding to these emails. Conclusion Our results not only highlight patterns in predatory email reception based on age and academic status but also emphasize the importance of considering academic productivity in understanding the prevalence of predatory solicitations.

Investigating Country-Specific Perceptions of Predatory Journals and Their Impact on Scholarly Integrity: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.