Dataset Information

Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. DESIGN:This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals. PARTICIPANTS:Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1. RESULTS:A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a 'one-stop-shop' website to consolidate information on the topic and a 'predatory journal research observatory' to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS:In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.

SUBMITTER: Cukier S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045268 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process.

Cukier Samantha S Lalu Manoj M Bryson Gregory L GL Cobey Kelly D KD Grudniewicz Agnes A Moher David D

BMJ open 20200209 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers.<h4>Design</h4>This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-qualit ...[more]

PMID: 32041864

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeLocal treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership.Methods and materialsA multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement.ResultsSeventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3).ConclusionsConsensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.

Project description:Background: Substantial declines in genital warts (GW) have been observed in countries with quadrivalent HPV vaccination programmes, with Australia showing the highest reductions due to early commencement and high vaccination coverage. There is a real potential to achieve GW elimination; however, no GW elimination definition exists. Taking Australia as a case study, we aimed to reach expert consensus on a proposed GW elimination definition using a modified Delphi process. Method: We used modelling and epidemiological data to estimate the expected number of new GW cases, from pre-vaccination (baseline) in 2006 to the year 2060 in Australian heterosexuals, men who have sex with men (MSM), and newly arrived international travellers and migrants. We used these data and the literature, to develop a questionnaire containing ten elimination-related items, each with 9-point Likert scales (1-strongly disagree; 9-strongly agree). The survey was completed by 18 experts who participated in a full day face-to-face modified Delphi study, in which individuals and then small groups discussed and scored each item. The process was repeated online for items where consensus (≥70% agreement) was not initially achieved. Median and coefficient of variation (COV) were used to describe the central tendency and variability of responses, respectively. Findings: There was a 95% participation rate in the face-to-face session, and 84% response rate in the final online round. The median item score ranged between 7.0 and 9.0 and the COV was ≤0.30 on all items. Consensus was reached that at ≥80% HPV vaccination coverage, GW will be eliminated as a public health problem in Australia by 2060. During this time period there will be a 95% reduction in population-level incidence compared with baseline, equivalent to <1 GW case per 10,000 population. The reductions will occur most rapidly in Australian heterosexuals, with 73%, 90% and 97% relative reductions by years 2021, 2030 and 2060, respectively. The proportion of new GW cases attributable to importation will increase from 3.6% in 2006 to ~49% in 2060. Interpretation: Our results indicate that the vaccination programme will minimise new GW cases in the Australian population, but importation of cases will continue. This is the first study to define GW elimination at a national level. The framework developed could be used to define GW elimination in other countries, with thresholds particularly valuable for vaccination programme impact evaluation. Funding: LK supported through an Australian Government Research Training Programme Scholarship; unconditional funding from Seqirus to support the Delphi Workshop.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus statement to provide advice on designing, implementing and evaluating crowdsourcing challenge contests in public health and medical contexts.DesignModified Delphi using three rounds of survey questionnaires and one consensus workshop.SettingUganda for face-to-face consensus activities, global for online survey questionnaires.ParticipantsA multidisciplinary expert panel was convened at a consensus-development conference in Uganda and included 21 researchers with experience leading challenge contests, five public health sector workers, and nine Ugandan end users. An online survey was sent to 140 corresponding authors of previously published articles that had used crowdsourcing methods.ResultsA subgroup of expert panel members developed the initial statement and survey. We received responses from 120 (85.7%) survey participants, which were presented at an in-person workshop of all 21 panel members. Panelists discussed each of the sections, revised the statement, and participated in a second round of the survey questionnaire. Based on this second survey round, we held detailed discussions of each subsection with workshop participants and further revised the consensus statement. We then conducted the third round of the questionnaire among the 21 expert panelists and used the results to finalize the statement. This iterative process resulted in 23 final statement items, all with greater than 80% consensus. Statement items are organised into the seven stages of a challenge contest, including the following: considering the appropriateness, organising a community steering committee, promoting the contest, assessing contributions, recognising contributors, sharing ideas and evaluating the contest (COPARSE).ConclusionsThere is high agreement among crowdsourcing experts and stakeholders on the design and implementation of crowdsourcing challenge contests. The COPARSE consensus statement can be used to organise crowdsourcing challenge contests, improve the rigour and reproducibility of crowdsourcing research and enable large-scale collaboration.

Dataset Information

Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process.

Publications

Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets