ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2017
The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Identifying Predatory Journals: A Practical Guide for Researchers.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- The Strong Get Stronger: The Matthew Effect in Academic Publishing.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- Article
- The burden of unwanted e-mails in academic surgery: a cross-sectional study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Submitting a Manuscript to a Scientific Journal.Respiratory care · 2023Review
- Publication practice in Taxonomy: Global inequalities and potential bias against negative results.PloS one · 2022Article
- The sustainability of "local" food: a review for policy-makers.Review of agricultural, food and environmental studies · 2022Article
- Predatory Publishing-the Early Career Researcher's View.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2021Article
- A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Predatory Publishers/Journals in Medical Sciences: How to Avoid, Stop, and What to Do after Being Scammed by Them?Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2020Review
- Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Review
- Making sense in the flood. How to cope with the massive flow of digital information in medical ethics.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them.Toxicologic pathology · 2020Article
- Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Review
- A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees.BMJ open · 2019Article
- How to Avoid Becoming Easy Prey for "Predatory" Journals and Why It Matters.Comparative medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper describes and discusses the phenomenon 'predatory publishing', in relation to both academic journals and books, and suggests a list of characteristics by which to identify predatory journals. It also raises the question whether traditional publishing houses have accompanied rogue publishers upon this path. It is noted that bioethics as a discipline does not stand unaffected by this trend. Towards the end of the paper it is discussed what can and should be done to eliminate or reduce the effects of this development. The paper concludes that predatory publishing is a growing phenomenon that has the potential to greatly affect both bioethics and science at large. Publishing papers and books for profit, without any genuine concern for content, but with the pretence of applying authentic academic procedures of critical scrutiny, brings about a worrying erosion of trust in scientific publishing.
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.