Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25657363›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of pharmaceutical education2014

Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences.

John D Bowman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of pharmaceutical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Faculty Applicants' Attempt to Inflate CVs Using Predatory Journals.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2019
    Article
  10. Where do we aspire to publish? A position paper on scientific communication in biochemistry and molecular biology.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Journal publishing in our connected world.Singapore medical journal · 2019
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

John D BowmanIrma Lerma Rangel College of Pharmacy, Texas A&M Health Sciences Center, Kingsville, Texas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open-access is a model for publishing scholarly, peer-reviewed journals on the Internet that relies on sources of funding other than subscription fees. Some publishers and editors have exploited the author-pays model of open-access, publishing for their own profit. Submissions are encouraged through widely distributed e-mails on behalf of a growing number of journals that may accept many or all submissions and subject them to little, if any, peer review or editorial oversight. Bogus conference invitations are distributed in a similar fashion. The results of these less than ethical practices might include loss of faculty member time and money, inappropriate article inclusions in curriculum vitae, and costs to the college or funding source.

Indexed as

Access to InformationCongresses as TopicFraudHumansInternetPeer Review, ResearchPublishingopen accesspeer reviewscientific conferencesscientific publishing

Identifiers

PMID25657363
PMCPMC4315198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.