Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.Methods
The authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews.Results
The selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals.Discussion
Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.
SUBMITTER: Ross-White A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6300240 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a high demand for rapid evidence syntheses to answer urgent public health questions. This article provides an overview of different types of reviews for public health questions and a synthesis of existing recommendations for the preparation of reviews. The aim is to support the planning of one's own review and the critical evaluation of published reviews.MethodsThe basis of this summary is an extensive search for guidelines and recommendations for different review types. Furthermore, internal journal clubs were held to determine knowledge needs and to critically discuss the various review types. For results dissemination, fact sheets were developed for the individual review types including the most important information, prerequisites and work steps, as well as a decision tree for identifying the appropriate review type for the respective question.ResultsOf the review types identified, Systematic, Rapid, Scoping, Umbrella, and Narrative Reviews were considered in more detail because they are particularly relevant to public health issues. Together with scoping and umbrella reviews, systematic reviews have the highest resource requirements due to the demands for extensive, systematic evidence synthesis and reproducibility. Rapid methods can accelerate the review process, for example by a very narrowly formulated question, a limited literature search, or the execution of certain steps by one instead of two persons.DiscussionSystematic Reviews may be considered as the gold standard, but they were developed primarily for clinical questions relating to interventions. Instead, this article was focused on review types that consider the diversity of questions as well as the predominant use of quantitative methods in the field of public health. The fact sheets developed and the decision tree should enable low-threshold access to reviews while linking the perspectives of research and resource planning. They complement existing guidelines and recommendations.ConclusionTo answer the diverse spectrum of public health questions, various types of reviews with various requirements and approaches are available. Given this diversity, a systematic introduction can be helpful for researchers planning or assessing a review.
| S-EPMC9630138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Predatory publishing represents a major challenge to scholarly communication. This paper maps the infiltration of journals suspected of predatory practices into the citation database Scopus and examines cross-country differences in the propensity of scholars to publish in such journals. Using the names of "potential, possible, or probable" predatory journals and publishers on Beall's lists, we derived the ISSNs of 3,293 journals from Ulrichsweb and searched Scopus with them. 324 of journals that appear both in Beall's lists and Scopus with 164 thousand articles published over 2015-2017 were identified. Analysis of data for 172 countries in 4 fields of research indicates that there is a remarkable heterogeneity. In the most affected countries, including Kazakhstan and Indonesia, around 17% of articles fall into the predatory category, while some other countries have no predatory articles whatsoever. Countries with large research sectors at the medium level of economic development, especially in Asia and North Africa, tend to be most susceptible to predatory publishing. Arab, oil-rich and/or eastern countries also appear to be particularly vulnerable. Policymakers and stakeholders in these and other developing countries need to pay more attention to the quality of research evaluation.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s11192-020-03852-4).
| S-EPMC7867864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe delivery of optimal medical care to children is dependent on the availability of child relevant research. Our objectives were to: i) systematically review and describe how children are handled in reviews of drug interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR); and ii) determine when effect sizes for the same drug interventions differ between children and adults.MethodsWe systematically identified all of the reviews relevant to child health in the CDSR 2002, Issue 4. Reviews were included if they investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of a drug intervention for a condition that occurs in both children and adults. Information was extracted on review characteristics including study methods, results, and conclusions.ResultsFrom 1496 systematic reviews, 408 (27%) were identified as relevant to both adult and child health; 52% (213) of these included data from children. No significant differences were found in effect sizes between adults and children for any of the drug interventions or conditions investigated. However, all of the comparisons lacked the power to detect a clinically significant difference and wide confidence intervals suggest important differences cannot be excluded. A large amount of data was unavailable due to inadequate reporting at the trial and systematic review level.ConclusionOverall, the findings of this study indicate there is a paucity of child-relevant and specific evidence generated from evidence syntheses of drug interventions. The results indicate a need for a higher standard of reporting for participant populations in studies of drug interventions.
| S-EPMC1261269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper examines the accuracy, validity and presentation of statistical evidence and also assesses the implications of irreproducibility associated with variations in sample size for academic research work and policy-making. The 2012/13 Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS), 10 academic publications and the Free Senior High School policy in Ghana are used to address the objectives of the paper. The data show that about 20 per cent of the tables in the Main Report of the GLSS Six is irreproducible, 10 per cent of the tables have outcomes worth re-examining, and in terms of completeness in the presentation of statistical evidence, only 3 out of the 27 sampled tables report the sample size that was used. Again, nine out of the 10 academic publications use half of the original sample size, two-fifths of the publications do not report the sample size for the descriptive statistics, a couple of the papers show varying sample size between the descriptive statistics and the regression analysis.
| S-EPMC5996736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Owls (Strigiformes) evolved specific adaptations to their nocturnal predatory lifestyle, such as asymmetrical ears, a facial disk, and a feather structure allowing silent flight. Owls also share some traits with diurnal raptors and other nocturnal birds, such as cryptic plumage patterns, reversed sexual size dimorphism, and acute vision and hearing. The genetic basis of some of these adaptations to a nocturnal predatory lifestyle has been studied by candidate gene approaches but rarely with genome-wide scans. Here, we used a genome-wide comparative analysis to test for selection in the early history of the owls. We estimated the substitution rates in the coding regions of 20 bird genomes, including 11 owls of which five were newly sequenced. Then, we tested for functional overrepresentation across the genes that showed signals of selection. In the ancestral branch of the owls, we found traces of positive selection in the evolution of genes functionally related to visual perception, especially to phototransduction, and to chromosome packaging. Several genes that have been previously linked to acoustic perception, circadian rhythm, and feather structure also showed signals of an accelerated evolution in the origin of the owls. We discuss the functions of the genes under positive selection and their putative association with the adaptation to the nocturnal predatory lifestyle of the owls.
| S-EPMC7566403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cycloaddition is an essential tool in chemical synthesis. Instead of using light or heat as a driving force, marine sponges promote cycloaddition with a more versatile but poorly understood mechanism in producing pyrrole-imidazole alkaloids sceptrin, massadine, and ageliferin. Through de novo synthesis of sceptrin and massadine, we show that sponges may use single-electron oxidation as a central mechanism to promote three different types of cycloaddition. Additionally, we provide surprising evidence that, in contrast to previous reports, sceptrin, massadine, and ageliferin have mismatched chirality. Therefore, massadine cannot be an oxidative rearrangement product of sceptrin or ageliferin, as is commonly believed. Taken together, our results demonstrate unconventional chemical approaches to achieving cycloaddition reactions in synthesis and uncover enantiodivergence as a new biosynthetic paradigm for natural products.
| S-EPMC4205478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Xeroderma pigmentosum group G (XPG) gene promotes recognition and excision of damaged DNA during the DNA repair process. We conducted a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical databases for publications evaluating the association XPG gene rs751402 C>T polymorphism and overall cancer risk. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted to assess the strength of the association. A total of 22 publications encompassing 10538 cases and 10511 control subjects were included in the final meta-analysis. We found the polymorphism to be associated with increased cancer risk (TT vs. CC: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.01-1.38, P = 0.040; CT vs. CC: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.01-1.24, P = 0.040; and CT/TT vs. CC: OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.002-1.26, P = 0.045). Stratification by cancer type indicated that this polymorphism may increase the risk of gastric cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma, which was further confirmed by a false-positive report probability analysis. Genotype-based mRNA expression provides further evidence that this polymorphism is associated with altered XPG mRNA expression. This meta-analysis suggests XPG gene rs751402 C>T polymorphism correlates with overall cancer risk, especially for gastric cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma.
| S-EPMC5581134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveEvidence syntheses perform rigorous investigations of the primary literature and they have played a vital role in generating evidence-based recommendations for governments worldwide during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, there has not yet been an attempt to organize them by topic and other characteristics. This study performed a systematic mapping exercise of non-clinical evidence syntheses pertaining to Covid-19.MethodsThis study conducted a systematic search on December 5, 2020 across 10 databases and servers: CINAHL (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States), Embase (Elsevier, Aalborg, Denmark), Global Health (EBSCO Information Services, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States), Healthstar (NICHSR and AHA, Bethesda, United States), MEDLINE (NLM, Bethesda, United States), PsychINFO (APA, Washington, DC, United States), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics, London, UK), Research Square (Research Square, Durham, North Carolina), MEDRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, United States), and PROSPERO (NIHR, York, United Kingdom). Only full evidence syntheses published in a peer-reviewed journal or preprint server were included.ResultsThis study classified all evidence syntheses in the following topics: health service delivery (n = 280), prevention and behavior (n = 201), mental health (n = 140), social epidemiology (n = 31), economy (n = 22), and environment (n = 19). This study provides a comprehensive resource of all evidence syntheses categorized according to topic.ConclusionsThis study proposes the following research priorities: governance, the impact of Covid-19 on different populations, the effectiveness of prevention and control methods across contexts, mental health, and vaccine hesitancy.
| S-EPMC8440048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease that causes joint inflammation. It affects around 400,000 people in the UK and 1 million adults in the USA. Given the appropriate treatment, many can have relatively few symptoms. It is therefore important to understand what it is like to live with rheumatoid arthritis and gain insight into peoples' decisions about utilising healthcare. The aims of this study were: (1) to bring together qualitative evidence syntheses that explore patients' experience of living with rheumatoid arthritis and (2) develop a conceptual understanding of what it is like to live with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods:We used the methods of mega-ethnography. The innovation of mega-ethnography is to use conceptual findings from qualitative evidence syntheses as primary data. We searched four bibliographic databases from inception until September 2018 to identify qualitative evidence syntheses that explored patients' experience of rheumatoid arthritis. Results:We identified 373 qualitative evidence syntheses, removed 179 duplicates and screened 194 full text studies. We identified 42 qualitative evidence syntheses that explored the experience of pain or arthritis and 9 of these explored the experience of rheumatoid arthritis. We abstracted ideas into 10 conceptual categories: (1) rheumatoid arthritis is in control of my body (2) rheumatoid arthritis alters reciprocity; (3) rheumatoid arthritis is an emotional challenge; (4) rheumatoid arthritis disrupts my present and future self; (5) the challenge of balancing personal and work life; (6) I am trying to make sense of what is happening; (7) rheumatoid arthritis is variable and unpredictable; (8) rheumatoid arthritis is invisible; (9) I need a positive experience of healthcare, and (10) I need to reframe the situation. We developed a conceptual model underpinned by living life precariously with rheumatoid arthritis. Conclusions:This is the second mega-ethnography, or synthesis of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of meta-ethnography. Future research should consider the proliferation of qualitative evidence synthesis in order to avoid duplication of research effort. Our model for rheumatoid arthritis has some important clinical implications that might be transferable to other musculoskeletal conditions.
| S-EPMC6390589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesA rapidly developing scenario like a pandemic requires the prompt production of high-quality systematic reviews, which can be automated using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. We evaluated the application of AI tools in COVID-19 evidence syntheses.Study designAfter prospective registration of the review protocol, we automated the download of all open-access COVID-19 systematic reviews in the COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence database, indexed them for AI-related keywords, and located those that used AI tools. We compared their journals' JCR Impact Factor, citations per month, screening workloads, completion times (from pre-registration to preprint or submission to a journal) and AMSTAR-2 methodology assessments (maximum score 13 points) with a set of publication date matched control reviews without AI.ResultsOf the 3,999 COVID-19 reviews, 28 (0.7%, 95% CI 0.47-1.03%) made use of AI. On average, compared to controls (n = 64), AI reviews were published in journals with higher Impact Factors (median 8.9 vs. 3.5, P < 0.001), and screened more abstracts per author (302.2 vs. 140.3, P = 0.009) and per included study (189.0 vs. 365.8, P < 0.001) while inspecting less full texts per author (5.3 vs. 14.0, P = 0.005). No differences were found in citation counts (0.5 vs. 0.6, P = 0.600), inspected full texts per included study (3.8 vs. 3.4, P = 0.481), completion times (74.0 vs. 123.0, P = 0.205) or AMSTAR-2 (7.5 vs. 6.3, P = 0.119).ConclusionAI was an underutilized tool in COVID-19 systematic reviews. Its usage, compared to reviews without AI, was associated with more efficient screening of literature and higher publication impact. There is scope for the application of AI in automating systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC9059390 | biostudies-literature