Dataset Information

Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons - results from an online survey in Germany.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Along 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.

Methods

In 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.

Results

Three 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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Maurer E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8053264 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop effective interventions to prevent publishing in presumed predatory journals (ie, journals that display deceptive characteristics, markers or data that cannot be verified), it is helpful to understand the motivations and experiences of those who have published in these journals. DESIGN:An online survey delivered to two sets of corresponding authors containing demographic information, and questions about researchers' perceptions of publishing in the presumed predatory journal, type of article processing fees paid and the quality of peer review received. The survey also asked six open-ended items about researchers' motivations and experiences. PARTICIPANTS:Using Beall's lists, we identified two groups of individuals who had published empirical articles in biomedical journals that were presumed to be predatory. RESULTS:Eighty-two authors partially responded (~14%?response rate (11.4%[44/386] from the initial sample, 19.3%[38/197] from second sample) to our survey. The top three countries represented were India (n=21, 25.9%), USA (n=17, 21.0%) and Ethiopia (n=5, 6.2%). Three participants (3.9%) thought the journal they published in was predatory at the time of article submission. The majority of participants first encountered the journal via an email invitation to submit an article (n=32, 41.0%), or through an online search to find a journal with relevant scope (n=22, 28.2%). Most participants indicated their study received peer review (n=65, 83.3%) and that this was helpful and substantive (n=51, 79.7%). More than a third (n=32, 45.1%) indicated they did not pay fees to publish. CONCLUSIONS:This work provides some evidence to inform policy to prevent future research from being published in predatory journals. Our research suggests that common views about predatory journals (eg, no peer review) may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists. These results are based on self-reports and may be biased thus limiting their interpretation.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough apps are becoming increasingly relevant in healthcare, there is limited knowledge about how healthcare professionals perceive "quality" in this context and how quality principles that can aid them in assessing health-related apps may be prioritised. The objective was to investigate physicians' views of predefined (general) quality principles for health apps and to determine whether a ranking algorithm applied to the acquired data can provide stable results against various demographic influences and may thus be appropriate for prioritisation.MethodsParticipants of an online survey of members of two German professional orthopaedics associations conducted between 02/12/2019 and 02/01/2020 were asked about their perception of a set of quality principles for health apps (i.e., "practicality," "risk adequacy," "ethical soundness," "legal conformity," "content validity," "technical adequacy," "usability," "resource efficiency," and "transparency"). Structured as a Kano survey, for each principle, there were questions about its perceived relevance and opinions regarding the presence or absence of corresponding characteristics. The available data were evaluated descriptively, and a newly developed method for prioritisation of the principles was applied overall and to different demographic strata (for validation).ResultsThree hundred eighty-two datasets from 9503 participants were evaluated. Legal conformity, content validity, and risk adequacy filled ranks one to three, followed by practicability, ethical soundness, and usability (ranks 4 to 6). Technical adequacy, transparency, and resource efficiency ranked last (ranks 7 to 9). The ranking based on the proposed method was relatively stable, irrespective of demographic factors. The principles were seen as essential, with one exception ("resource efficiency"). Only those with little to no interest in digitisation (22/382, 5.8%) rated the nine principles indifferently.ConclusionsThe specified quality principles and their prioritisation can lay a foundation for future assessments of apps in the medical field. Professional societies build upon this to highlight opportunities for digital transformations in medicine and encourage their members to participate.