Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25737780›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2013

Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers.

Jeffrey Beall

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Physicians' and Pharmacists' Awareness, Exposure, and Perception Regarding Predatory Solicitations at a Mother-Child Teaching Hospital.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026
    Article
  3. Psychiatrists Must Address Predatory Journals with Trainees and Early-Career Collaborators.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. How predatory journals leak into PubMed.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review.Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2017
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jeffrey BeallUniversity of Colorado Denver, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This editorial examines the problem of predatory publishers and how they have negatively affected scholarly communication. Society relies on high-quality, peer-reviewed articles for public policy, legal cases, and improving the public health. Researchers need to be aware of how predatory publishers operate and need to avoid falling into their traps. The editorial examines the recent history of predatory publishers and how they have become prominent in the world of scholarly journals.

Indexed as

Open accessPredatory publishersScholarly journalsScholarly publishing

Identifiers

PMID25737780
PMCPMC4326692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.