Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine on patient-centred outcomes in surgical patients: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is increasingly used for surgical patients requiring general anaesthesia. However, its effectiveness on patient-centred outcomes remains uncertain. Our main objective was to evaluate the patient-centred effectiveness of intraoperative dexmedetomidine for adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from inception to October 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine with placebo, opioid, or usual care in adult patients requiring surgery under general anaesthesia were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. We synthesised data using a random-effects Bayesian regression framework to derive effect estimates and the probability of a clinically important effect. For continuous outcomes, we pooled instruments with similar constructs using standardised mean differences (SMDs) and converted SMDs and credible intervals (CrIs) to their original scale when appropriate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our primary outcome was quality of recovery after surgery. To guide interpretation on the original scale, the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) instrument was used (range 0-150 points, minimally important difference [MID] of 6 points).

RESULTS

We identified 49,069 citations, from which 44 RCTs involving 5904 participants were eligible. Intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement in postoperative QoR-15 (mean difference 9, 95% CrI 4-14, n=21 RCTs, moderate certainty of evidence). We found 99% probability of any benefit and 88% probability of achieving the MID. There was a reduction in chronic pain incidence (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CrI 0.19-0.79, n=7 RCTs, low certainty of evidence). There was also increased risk of clinically significant hypotension (OR 1.98, 95% CrI 0.84-3.92, posterior probability of harm 94%, n=8 RCTs) and clinically significant bradycardia (OR 1.74, 95% CrI 0.93-3.34, posterior probability of harm 95%, n=10 RCTs), with very low certainty of evidence for both. There was limited evidence to inform other secondary patient-centred outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo or standard of care, intraoperative dexmedetomidine likely results in meaningful improvement in the quality of recovery and chronic pain after surgery. However, it might increase clinically important bradycardia and hypotension.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42023439896).

An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study METHODS: Ophthalmologists (n = 14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails that they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals, with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access, pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals that were listed on PubMed vs those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, P = .002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, P < .001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, P = .01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: a cross-sectional analysis of references and citations

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study are (1) to analyze the references cited by retracted papers originated from paper mills; (2) to analyze the citations received by retracted papers originated from paper mills; and (3) to analyze the potential relationships existing between paper mill papers and their references and their citations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This study was a cross-sectional study. All original papers retracted in 2022 identified as having originated from paper mills and had been published at least 12 months before their retraction (hereinafter "source-retracted papers") were included. The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the source-retracted papers and Web of Science was used to identify the references contained within them and the citations received by them. We described the characteristics of the papers and journals. Additionally, 2 networks of source-retracted papers mutually interconnected via their citations and references were built: 1 with only retracted references and retracted citations and the other with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted).

RESULTS

A total of 416 paper mill papers retracted in 2022 (sourced retracted papers) were identified, with a median of 1247 (interquartilic range, 907.8-1673.5) days between publication and retraction. Of all authors identified, 92.3% were affiliated with Chinese institutions. There were 14,411 references contained in the source-retracted papers and 8479 citations received by them; the median number of references and citations was 35 (29-40) and 16 (9-25), respectively. In total, 473 references and citations had also been retracted for being paper mill papers. Among the 416 sourced-retracted papers, 169 (41.9%) and 178 (42.8%) were referenced or were cited by at least another retracted paper, the majority of which also originated from paper mills. The first network analysis, which included source-retracted papers along with their retracted references and citations, found 3 clusters of 53, 48, and 44 retracted papers that were mutually interconnected. The second network analysis, with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted) identified a large cluster of 2530 interconnected papers.

CONCLUSION

Retracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills, displaying inter-relationships. Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications.

Rising adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: evaluating the role, risks, and ethical implications in paper drafting and review process

BACKGROUND

In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns.

CONTENT

This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment.

SUMMARY

AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment.

OUTLOOK

As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing.

Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential in medicine. However, the lack of universal reporting guidelines poses challenges in ensuring the validity and reproducibility of published research studies in this field.

METHODS

Based on a systematic review of academic publications and reporting standards demanded by both international consortia and regulatory stakeholders as well as leading journals in the fields of medicine and medical informatics, 26 reporting guidelines published between 2009 and 2023 were included in this analysis. Guidelines were stratified by breadth (general or specific to medical fields), underlying consensus quality, and target research phase (preclinical, translational, clinical) and subsequently analyzed regarding the overlap and variations in guideline items.

RESULTS

AI reporting guidelines for medical research vary with respect to the quality of the underlying consensus process, breadth, and target research phase. Some guideline items such as reporting of study design and model performance recur across guidelines, whereas other items are specific to particular fields and research stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis highlights the importance of reporting guidelines in clinical AI research and underscores the need for common standards that address the identified variations and gaps in current guidelines. Overall, this comprehensive overview could help researchers and public stakeholders reinforce quality standards for increased reliability, reproducibility, clinical validity, and public trust in AI research in healthcare. This could facilitate the safe, effective, and ethical translation of AI methods into clinical applications that will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Can ChatGPT identify predatory biomedical and dental journals? A cross-sectional content analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether ChatGPT can help to identify predatory biomedical and dental journals, analyze the content of its responses and compare the frequency of positive and negative indicators provided by ChatGPT concerning predatory and legitimate journals.

METHODS

Four-hundred predatory and legitimate biomedical and dental journals were selected from four sources: Beall's list, unsolicited emails, the Web of Science (WOS) journal list and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). ChatGPT was asked to determine journal legitimacy. Journals were classified into legitimate or predatory. Pearson's Chi-squared test and logistic regression were conducted. Two machine learning algorithms determined the most influential criteria on the correct classification of journals.

RESULTS

The data were categorized under 10 criteria with the most frequently coded criteria being the transparency of processes and policies. ChatGPT correctly classified predatory and legitimate journals in 92.5 % and 71 % of the sample, respectively. The accuracy of ChatGPT responses was 0.82. ChatGPT also demonstrated a high level of sensitivity (0.93). Additionally, the model exhibited a specificity of 0.71, accurately identifying true negatives. A highly significant association between ChatGPT verdicts and the classification based on known sources was observed (P <0.001). ChatGPT was 30.2 times more likely to correctly classify a predatory journal (95 % confidence interval: 16.9-57.43, p-value: <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT can accurately distinguish predatory and legitimate journals with a high level of accuracy. While some false positive (29 %) and false negative (7.5 %) results were observed, it may be reasonable to harness ChatGPT to assist with the identification of predatory journals.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

ChatGPT may effectively distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals, with accuracy rates of 92.5 % and 71 %, respectively. The potential utility of large-scale language models in exposing predatory publications is worthy of further consideration.

Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?

The process of getting one's work published is a major milestone for many in their early academic and clinical careers. However, this process can be confusing and overwhelming for many who have yet to publish themselves. There are differing motivators for publishing work in our early career stages, alongside considerations, such as what we publish, where we decide to submit work, and how we logistically undertake the submission process. This commentary provides a holistic overview for the early career medical educator, empowering them to take the bold steps toward "getting published."

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.

Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals

Objective

The main aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess levels of knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.

Methods

The current study employed successive methods framework including (1) item generation through a literature review and theoretical framework development, (2) validity testing in terms of face, content, and construct validity for perceptions construct as well as item analysis for knowledge scale, and (3) reliability testing in terms of Cronbach's alpha, Kuder-Richardson (KR-20), item-to-total correlations, corrected item-to-total correlations, Cronbach's alpha if item deleted, and test-retest reliability. A total of 304 participants were recruited from King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to evaluate its construct validity and reliability. This was established using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring (PFA) and varimax rotation as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for perception construct.

Results

An instrument was developed from this study called the "Predatory Journals KP Assessment Questionnaire". The results of EFA and CFA confirmed the construct validity of the perception construct. Item analysis confirmed the construct validity of the knowledge scale. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were achieved for the knowledge scale items, consisting of 13 items. The results of EFA confirmed the measured constructs of perceptions toward predatory journals. The results of EFA and CFA for perception construct resulted in only one factor with 9 items.

Conclusion

This study has successfully developed a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals among researchers in the clinical and health disciplines. This instrument serves as a valuable guide for future studies that aim to assess researcher's knowledge and perceptions about predatory journals and examine the differences in these measured constructs according to their demographic and professional characteristics.

Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers

OBJECTIVES

To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based.

RESULTS

Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.

METHODS

All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

RESULTS

A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Highly cited forensic practitioners in the Nordic countries and their composite citation scores based on six different citation metrics

Forensic science is a multidisciplinary field that involves the use of various scientific methods and techniques for the investigation of crimes. Forensic scientists are often required to testify in court as expert witnesses and explain the meaning of chemical, physical, and/or medical evidence to a judge and jury. This article took advantage of a citation database to identify the most highly cited forensic practitioners in four Nordic countries within the discipline of legal and forensic medicine. The starting point was 7 million scientists indexed in the SCOPUS database, each of whom had their name on at least five entries. Six different citation metrics were used to calculate a person's composite citation score. Those within the top 2% of their primary research discipline were considered highly cited.

A descriptive study found low prevalence of presumed predatory publications in a subset of Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from "reputable" to "presumed predatory" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.

RESULTS

We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.

CONCLUSION

Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.

Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System

INTRODUCTION

Learning research methodology is increasingly becoming an essential part of graduate medical education worldwide, with many regulatory and accreditation bodies requiring residents to participate in scholarship. Research methodology workshops have become a standard part of medical curricula; however, there is limited data on how much training on journal selection and the publication process trainees receive. The alarming growth of predatory journals has made it increasingly difficult for researchers, especially trainees and early career physicians, to distinguish these publications from reputable journals. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge of reputable and predatory publishing practices amongst medical trainees in an international medical education setting in the United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

A survey on credible journal practices based on the 'Think. Check. Submit' initiative was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at two large academic medical centers in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate variable frequencies.

RESULTS

Over half of the 160 respondents reported receiving prior research methodology training and 42.5% had at least one publication. The majority of the trainees selected impact factor and the quality of the peer-review process as characteristics of reputable journals. Ambiguous editorial board and rapid publication process were recognized as characteristics of predatory journals by >65% of trainees, however, 95% of all trainees were unaware of Beall's list or other resources to help select a journal for publication. 15.2% of trainees who received unsolicited emails from publishers submitted their manuscripts to the unfamiliar journals, citing peer recommendation and pressure to publish from their training programs as reasons.

CONCLUSION

Trainees in the United Arab Emirates were mostly unaware of reputable publication practices and are vulnerable to publishing in predatory journals. Policy and educational reform are necessary to maintain the credibility and integrity of the scientific process.

What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature

Introduction

The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi.

Methods

The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled.

Results

A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals.

Conclusion

Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone.

Vulnerability of African Neurosurgery to Predatory Journals: An Electronic Survey of Aspiring Neurosurgeons, Residents, and Consultants

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals (PJs) publish research with little to no rigorous peer review in exchange for money. It is unclear what proportion of researchers is vulnerable to PJs and which factors are associated with vulnerability. The aim of this study was to evaluate the vulnerability of African neurosurgery researchers to PJs and identify their correlates.

METHODS

A 3-part electronic survey in English and French versions was distributed via social media to African consultants and trainees from November 1 to December 1, 2021. Bivariable relationships were evaluated with χ² test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman ρ correlation, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were 101 respondents to the survey (response rate 56.1%). Respondents had mean age of 34.9 years, 82.2% were male (n = 83), 38.6% were consultant neurosurgeons (n = 39), and 33.7% were from Central Africa (n = 34). Of respondents, 66 had published ≥ 1 articles in the past, and 13 had published at least 1 article in a PJ. A PJ had contacted 34 respondents via e-mail, and 8 respondents had reviewed articles for a PJ. The Think. Check. Submit initiative and Beall's list were familiar to 19 and 13 respondents, respectively. Publication in PJs was correlated with the respondent's age (R = 0.23, P = 0.02) and total scholarly output (R = 0.38, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Young African neurosurgery researchers are vulnerable to PJs primarily because they are not familiar with the concept of PJs or how to identify them.

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

Background

Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996.

Conclusions

We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge.

Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

Omission of sex and gender considerations is a recurring deficiency in research design and reporting

Integration of sex and gender considerations in health research reporting guidelines is very low

Three criteria were used to assess correct use of sex and gender concepts

Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria

A call to action is made to address these deficiencies

A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as "predatory". Simply referring to them as "potentially predatory" or "borderline predatory" also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) once included on Beall’s list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all singled them out as predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals.

Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers

ABSTRACT

A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.

"Evidence-based checklists" for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An analysis and proposal for moving forward

BACKGROUND

Predatory journals (PJs) pose a threat to the quality/integrity of scientific publishing. Checklists have been proposed to identify PJs, but few are "evidence-based". This study's objective was to search for/assess evidence-based checklists (EBCs) for reliability and validity, based on a new consensus definition of PJs.

METHODS

A published methods guideline for scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of identified EBCs. Items from each EBC were compared against the consensus definition, and a list of items to be considered in the creation of a composite EBC to identify PJs was generated.

RESULTS

Four EBCs were identified. None of these had completed the first of the nine steps for scale development and validation. Forty-seven items from the four EBCs were assessed against the consensus definition, of which 28 items fell within the definition. A proposed composite EBC was created from items matching components of the consensus definition.

CONCLUSION

EBCs to detect PJs lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the scope of the new consensus definition of PJs. With the recent consensus definition, EBCs creators now have a clearer target, and can make adjustments.

Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews appraise and synthesize the results from a body of literature. In healthcare, systematic reviews are also used to develop clinical practice guidelines. An increasingly common concern among systematic reviews is that they may unknowingly capture studies published in "predatory" journals and that these studies will be included in summary estimates and impact results, guidelines, and ultimately, clinical care.

FINDINGS

There is currently no agreed-upon guidance that exists for how best to manage articles from predatory journals that meet the inclusion criteria for a systematic review. We describe a set of actions that authors of systematic reviews can consider when handling articles published in predatory journals: (1) detail methods for addressing predatory journal articles a priori in a study protocol, (2) determine whether included studies are published in open access journals and if they are listed in the directory of open access journals, and (3) conduct a sensitivity analysis with predatory papers excluded from the synthesis.

CONCLUSION

Encountering eligible articles published in presumed predatory journals when conducting a review is an increasingly common threat. Developing appropriate methods to account for eligible research published in predatory journals is needed to decrease the potential negative impact of predatory journals on healthcare.

[Predatory journals: A real threat for medical research. 1. Identify these journals and understand how they work]

The "author-pay" model of open access publication, which appeared in 2002, allocates to the author or his institution the costs of processing articles due to the journal after acceptance, for an amount of a few hundred to several thousand euros. New publishers emerged towards the end of the 2000s, which used this model but with purely commercial objectives, offering naive authors and/or wishing to quickly expand their curriculum vitae by publications in "predatory journals". They are characterized by aggressive e-mail solicitations, lack of ethics, lack of details about the publisher and the editorial board, poor peer review, unspecified and low fees for processing articles, a lack of indexing and the promise of rapid publication.

One year of unsolicited e-mails: The modus operandi of predatory journals and publishers

OBJECTIVES

To quantify, characterize and analyze e-mail from predatory journals (PJ) received by an academic in dentistry.

METHODS

E-mails received in 2019 and suspected of being potentially predatory were pre-selected. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI) checklist was applied to identify the suspected biomedical PJ, including the following criteria: article processing charge (APC), fake impact factor, the journal being listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also extracted information on the lack of an impact factor on Journal Citations Reports, non-journal affiliated contact e-mail address, flattering language, article and/or personal citation, unsubscribe link, being listed in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) current catalog and indexed on Medline.

RESULTS

A total of 2812 unsolicited suspected e-mails were received, and 1837 requested some sort of manuscript; among these, 1751 met some of the OHRI criteria. Less than half (780/1837, 42 %) referred to some area of dentistry. The median APC was US$399. A false impact factor was mentioned in 11 % (201/1837) of the e-mails, and 27 % (504/1837) corresponded to journals currently listed in the NLM catalog. Journals listed in DOAJ and COPE sent 89 e-mails.

CONCLUSIONS

The email campaign from PJ was high and recurrent. Researchers should be well informed about PJ' modus operandi to protect their own reputation as authors and that of science.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Peer review and established academic practices and etiquette contribute to ensuring scientific progress, which is essential to protect the health of patients in particular and of people in general. Predatory journals constitute a threat to peer review and scientific etiquette and, as such, may hinder scientific progress and public health.