ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2016
The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Global disparities in neurosurgical literature: a narrative review of underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries and pathways to research equity.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Retracted Publications Related to Statistics: A Scopus-Based Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of COVID-19-related Publications in Nursing by Philippine-based Authors.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived publication pressure among academic researchers in Canada.PloS one · 2022Article
- Canadian academics' use of predatory journals.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2021Article
- A review of the current concerns about misconduct in medical sciences publications and the consequences.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2020Review
- Social media for research, education and practice in rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2020Review
- COVID-19 research: pandemicForensic sciences research · 2020Article
- Do Preys Prey on Their Predators? Confusion Over Predatory "Hage-taka" Journals.Japan Medical Association journal : JMAJ · 2019Article
- Open Access Publishing in India: Coverage, Relevance, and Future Perspectives.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
- Open Access Journals in the Middle East and Iran.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
- Predatory journals: Authors and readers beware.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
- Article
- Improving Scientific Writing Skills and Publishing Capacity by Developing University-Based Editing System and Writing Programs.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Review
- Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of 'prolific' scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.
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.