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.

Basic information

Original name

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

Authors

BARKER, Timothy H (guarantor), Danielle POLLOCK, Jennifer C STONE, Miloslav KLUGAR (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution), Anna M SCOTT, Cindy STERN, Rick WIECHULA, Larissa SHAMSEER, Edoardo AROMATARIS, Amanda ROSS-WHITE and Zachary MUNN

Edition

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

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

30230 Other clinical medicine subjects

Country of publisher

United States of America

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

URL

Impact factor

Impact factor: 9.800 in 2022

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14110/23:00130327

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

DOI

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

UT WoS

000907883100001

Keywords in English

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

Abstract

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.

Links

LTC20031, research and development project

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

Investor: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the CR, 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 and 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, vol. 14, No 3, p. 370-381. ISSN 1759-2879. Available from: 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 and 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, vol.~14, No~3, p.~370-381. ISSN~1759-2879. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613.

Detailed Information on Publication Record