Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10907520 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionMany predatory journals fail to follow best publication practices. Studies assessing the impact of predatory journals have focused on how these articles are cited in reputable academic journals. However, it is possible that research from predatory journals is cited beyond the academic literature in policy documents and guidelines. Given that research used to inform public policy or government guidelines has the potential for widespread impact, we will examine whether predatory journals have penetrated public policy.Methods and analysisThis is a descriptive study with no hypothesis testing. Policy documents that cite work from the known predatory publisher OMICS will be downloaded from the Overton database. Overton collects policy documents from over 1200 sources worldwide. Policy documents will be evaluated to determine how the predatory journal article is used. We will also extract epidemiological details of the policy documents, including: who funded their development, the discipline the work is relevant to and the name of the organisations producing the policy. The record of scholarly citations of the identified predatory articles will also be examined. Findings will be reported with descriptive statistics using counts and percentages.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval was required for this study since it does not involve human or animal research. Study findings will be discussed at workshops on journalology and predatory publishing and will be disseminated through preprint, peer-reviewed literature and conference presentations.
| S-EPMC8981276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPredatory journals promise high acceptance rates and quick publication in exchange for a processing fee. As these journals aim to maximize profits, they neglect traditional mechanisms used to ensure a high-quality publication. Unsolicited email invitations are a characteristic of predatory journals that often inundate the inboxes of surgeons. The objective of this study is to use these emails to identify potentially predatory journals in the area of surgery and plastic surgery.MethodsUnsolicited email requests from surgery-related journals were collected over a 3-month period. Journals were evaluated using a modified version of the Rohrich and Weinstein checklist. The average number of "predatory" criteria met by these potentially predatory journals (PPJs) was compared to that of the top open-access plastic surgery journals which were assumed to be non-predatory for the purposes of this study.ResultsIn total, 437 unsolicited email requests were received. Of these, 92 emails, representing 57 PPJs, were eligible for inclusion. On average, the PPJs met 5 of the 12 "predatory" criteria, compared to less than 1 in the comparison group. Approximately 96% of these emails, or the respective websites, contained obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes; 98% of these emails came from journals not listed on Scopus, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and/or Web of Science.ConclusionsOf the journals that sent unsolicited emails, 98% met 2 or more criteria and were deemed to be predatory. If a journal contains grammatical mistakes and is not listed on Scopus, DOAJ, and/or Web of Science, authors should be cautious.
| S-EPMC9096859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives (1) To assess endorsement of trial registration in author instructions of urology-related journals and (2) to assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of urology were effectively registered. Design Cross-sectional study of author instructions and published trials. Setting Journals publishing in the field of urology. Participants First, the authors analysed author instructions of 55 urology-related journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009' (12/2010). The authors divided these journals in two groups: those requiring and those not mentioning trial registration as a precondition for publication. Second, the authors chose the five journals with the highest impact factor (IF) from each group. Intervention MEDLINE search to identify RCTs published in these 10 journals in 2009 (01/2011); search of the clinical trials meta-search interface of WHO (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for RCTs that lacked information about registration (01-03/2011). Two authors independently assessed the information. Outcome measures Proportion of journals providing advice about trial registration and proportion of trials registered. Results Of 55 journals analysed, 26 (47.3%) provided some editorial advice about trial registration. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration explicitly (p=0.015). Of 106 RCTs published in 2009, 63 were registered (59.4%) with a tendency to an increase after 2005 (83.3%, p=0.035). 71.4% (30/42) of the RCTs that were published in journals mentioning and requiring registration, and 51.6% (33/64) of the RCTs that were published in journals that did not mention trial registration explicitly were registered. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.04). Conclusions The existence of a statement about trial registration in author instructions resulted in a higher proportion of registered RCTs in those journals. Journals with higher IFs were more likely to mention trial registration.
| S-EPMC3236819 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesOrthopaedic surgeons have a responsibility to minimise risks of ionising radiation to patients, themselves and staff. This study aims to establish the understanding of radiation practice, legislation and risk by orthopaedic surgeons.MethodsA nationwide online survey of UK-based orthopaedic surgeons was conducted. Participants answered 18 multiple-choice questions assessing level of radiation safety training, basic principles/knowledge of ionising radiation, relevant legislation and operating practice.ResultsA total of 406 surgeons completed the survey. 92% reported using intraoperative ionising radiation at least once per week. 38% received no formal training on radiation safety. Knowledge of basic principles of radiation and legislation was limited. There was variable knowledge when labelling an image intensifier machine and choosing its safest orientation. Poor uptake of radiation protection equipment was noted. Only 19% agreed they had adequate training in ionising radiation safety and 27% reported receiving adequate training in equipment emitting ionising radiation in the operating theatre.ConclusionMany orthopaedic surgeons in the UK do not believe they are adequately trained in radiation safety. There is a deficiency amongst practicing surgeons in basic knowledge, relevant legislation and practicalities of the use of ionising radiation in the operating room. This could potentially put patients and health-care professionals at additional risk. We recommend that a standardised national training programme on the basic principles and safety of ionising radiation is implemented for all practicing orthopaedic surgeons.Advances in knowledgeThis paper is the first UK national survey amongst orthopaedic surgeons and is one of the largest reported internationally.
| S-EPMC9327761 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The companies publishing predatory journals are an emerging problem in the area of scientific literature as they only seek to drain money from authors without providing any customer service for the authors or their readership. These predatory journals try to attract new submissions by aggressive email advertising and high acceptance rates. But in turn, they do not provide proper peer review, and therefore, the scientific quality of submitted articles is questionable. This is important because more and more people, including patients, are reading such journals and rely on the information they provide. Consequently, predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical science, and it is crucial for scientists, physicians and even patients to be aware of this problem. In this review, we briefly summarize the history of the open access movement, as well as the rise of and roles played by predatory journals. In conclusion, young and inexperienced authors publishing in a predatory journal must be aware of the damage of their reputation, of inadequate peer review processes and that unprofitable journals might get closed and all published articles in that journal might be lost.
| S-EPMC6174996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlong with emerging open access journals (OAJ) predatory journals increasingly appear. As they harm accurate and good scientific research, we aimed to examine the awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons.MethodsIn an online survey between August and December 2019 the knowledge on predatory journals and OAJ was tested with a hyperlink made available to the participants via the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) email distributor.ResultsThree hundred fifty orthopaedic and trauma surgeons participated, of which 291 complete responses (231 males (79.4%), 54 females (18.6%) and 5 N/A (2.0%)) were obtained. 39.9% were aware of predatory journals. However, 21.0% knew about the "Directory of Open Access Journals" (DOAJ) as a register for non-predatory open access journals. The level of profession (e.g. clinic director, consultant) (p = 0.018) influenced the awareness of predatory journals. Interestingly, participants aware of predatory journals had more often been listed as corresponding authors (p < 0.001) and were well published as first or last author (p < 0.001). Awareness of OAJ was masked when journal selection options did not to provide any information on the editorial board, the peer review process or the publication costs.ConclusionThe impending hazard of predatory journals is unknown to many orthopaedic and trauma surgeons. Early stage clinical researchers must be trained to differentiate between predatory and scientifically accurate journals.
| S-EPMC8053264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublication speed is one of the critical factors affecting authors' preference to a journal for manuscript submission. The publication time of submitted manuscripts varies across journals and specialty.ObjectivesSeveral bibliometric studies in various fields of medicine, except in anesthesiology, have addressed the issue of publication speed and factors that influence the publication speed. We aimed to identify factors affecting the publication speed of indexed anesthesiology journals.MethodOverall, 25 anesthesiology journals indexed in MEDLINE database were retrospectively analyzed for the time required during different stages of publication process. A total of 12 original articles published in the year 2018 were randomly selected from each journal based on the number of issues. Time periods from submission to acceptance and from submission to publication were noted, and their association with impact factor (IF), advanced online publication (AOP), and article processing charges (APCs) were evaluated.ResultsThe median time from submission to acceptance and from submission to publication for the selected journals were 120 (IQR [83-167]) days and 186 (IQR [126-246]) days, respectively. Publication speed was not found to have any correlation with IF and APC. However, journals with AOP required significantly lesser time for publication than those without AOP 138.5 and 240 days, respectively, (p = 0.011). Moreover, the IF of journals with AOP was significantly higher than that of journals without AOP (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe study provides an overview of total time required for peer review, acceptance, and publication in indexed anesthesiology journals. Researchers should focus on journals with AOP for expediting the publication process and avoiding publication delays.
| S-EPMC9373650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.
| S-EPMC6728033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAcademical and not-for-profit research funders are increasingly requiring that the research they fund must be published open access, with some insisting on publishing with a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to allow the broadest possible use. We aimed to clarify the open access variants provided by leading medical journals and record the availability of the CC BY licence for commercially funded research.MethodsWe identified medical journals with a 2015 impact factor of ≥15.0 on 24 May 2017, then excluded from the analysis journals that only publish review articles. Between 29 June 2017 and 26 July 2017, we collected information about each journal's open access policies from their websites and/or by email contact. We contacted the journals by email again between 6 December 2017 and 2 January 2018 to confirm our findings.ResultsThirty-five medical journals publishing original research from 13 publishers were included in the analysis. All 35 journals offered some form of open access allowing articles to be free-to-read, either immediately on publication or after a delay of up to 12 months. Of these journals, 21 (60%) provided immediate open access with a CC BY licence under certain circumstances (eg, to specific research funders). Of these 21, 20 only offered a CC BY licence to authors funded by non-commercial organisations and one offered this option to any funder who required it.ConclusionsMost leading medical journals do not offer to authors reporting commercially funded research an open access licence that allows unrestricted sharing and adaptation of the published material. The journals' policies are therefore not aligned with open access declarations and guidelines. Commercial research funders lag behind academical funders in the development of mandatory open access policies, and it is time for them to work with publishers to advance the dissemination of the research they fund.
| S-EPMC6596940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Predatory journals and conferences have little or no peer review. Their raison d'être is for making money through the article processing charges and the conference registration fees. Without a critical evaluation, predatory journals publishing flawed results and conclusions would cloud the existing scientific literature. Predatory conferences are the offshoots of predatory publishing. The conferences are not organised by learned societies, but by profit-making event organisers. There is a need for awareness among researchers and clinicians regarding predatory publishing. The scourge of predatory publishing and conferencing should be more often highlighted during scientific meetings and publication courses.
| S-EPMC7513658 | biostudies-literature