ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2015
Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trends, Reasons, and Countries Using the Retraction Watch Database.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Dos and don'ts of a successfully peer-reviewed publication: From A-Z.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2020Article
- A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Problems and challenges of predatory journals.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2018Review
- Letter to the Editor: Predatory Practices and How to Circumvent Them: a Viewpoint from India.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- How to Act When Research Misconduct Is Not Detected by Software but Revealed by the Author of the Plagiarized Article.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- Clinical research challenges in the era of cardiovascular medical devices.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2016Article
- Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- Specialist Bibliographic Databases.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- The Author's Response: Educating Researchers and Editors: Contributing to Ethical Publication Activity.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Article
- Predatory Publishing Practices Corrode the Credibility of Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall's list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association's and other global organizations' draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.