How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis?
A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence
synthesis experts

J 2023

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts

BARKER, Timothy H, Danielle POLLOCK, Jennifer C STONE, Miloslav KLUGAR, Anna M SCOTT et. al.

Základní údaje

Originální název

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts

Autoři

BARKER, Timothy H (garant), Danielle POLLOCK, Jennifer C STONE, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Česká republika, domácí), Anna M SCOTT, Cindy STERN, Rick WIECHULA, Larissa SHAMSEER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Amanda ROSS-WHITE a Zachary MUNN

Vydání

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, HOBOKEN, WILEY, 2023, 1759-2879

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

30230 Other clinical medicine subjects

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 9.800 v roce 2022

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14110/23:00130327

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613

UT WoS

000907883100001

Klíčová slova anglicky

evidence synthesis; fraudulent data; predatory journals; predatory publishing; systematic reviews

Štítky

14119612, 14119613, rivok

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 26. 1. 2024 11:01, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Anotace

V originále

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences.Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%).While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.

Návaznosti

LTC20031, projekt VaV

Název: Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic

Investor: Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR, Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic, INTER-COST

Citovat

BARKER, Timothy H, Danielle POLLOCK, Jennifer C STONE, Miloslav KLUGAR, Anna M SCOTT, Cindy STERN, Rick WIECHULA, Larissa SHAMSEER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Amanda ROSS-WHITE a Zachary MUNN. How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS. HOBOKEN: WILEY, 2023, roč. 14, č. 3, s. 370-381. ISSN 1759-2879. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613.

@article{2255037,
   author = {Barker, Timothy H and Pollock, Danielle and Stone, Jennifer C and Klugar, Miloslav and Scott, Anna M and Stern, Cindy and Wiechula, Rick and Shamseer, Larissa and Aromataris, Edoardo and RossandWhite, Amanda and Munn, Zachary},
   article_location = {HOBOKEN},
   article_number = {3},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613},
   keywords = {evidence synthesis; fraudulent data; predatory journals; predatory publishing; systematic reviews},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {1759-2879},
   journal = {RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS},
   title = {How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts},
   url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1613},
   volume = {14},
   year = {2023}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 2255037
AU  - Barker, Timothy H - Pollock, Danielle - Stone, Jennifer C - Klugar, Miloslav - Scott, Anna M - Stern, Cindy - Wiechula, Rick - Shamseer, Larissa - Aromataris, Edoardo - Ross-White, Amanda - Munn, Zachary
PY  - 2023
TI  - How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts
JF  - RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
VL  - 14
IS  - 3
SP  - 370-381
EP  - 370-381
PB  - WILEY
SN  - 17592879
KW  - evidence synthesis
KW  - fraudulent data
KW  - predatory journals
KW  - predatory publishing
KW  - systematic reviews
UR  - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1613
N2  - Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences.Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%).While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.
ER  -

BARKER, Timothy H, Danielle POLLOCK, Jennifer C STONE, Miloslav KLUGAR, Anna M SCOTT, Cindy STERN, Rick WIECHULA, Larissa SHAMSEER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Amanda ROSS-WHITE a Zachary MUNN. How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts. \textit{RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS}. HOBOKEN: WILEY, 2023, roč.~14, č.~3, s.~370-381. ISSN~1759-2879. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613.

Podrobný výpis o publikaci