ArticleJournal of cell communication and signaling2017
Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review.
Article in Journal of cell communication and signaling, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2024Article
- Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Jourchain: using blockchain to avoid questionable journals.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Letter to the editor: Citations from predatory journals must be discouraged and how to identify predatory journals and publishers.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Article
- Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases.International journal of public health · 2019Article
- Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Negative Effects of "Predatory" Journals on Global Health Research.Annals of global health · 2018Review
- Bibliometrics in a digital age: help or hindrance.Science progress · 2018Review
- Problems and challenges of predatory journals.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2018Review
- The disastrous boomerang effects of "citation mania".Journal of cell communication and signaling · 2017Article
- Academic E-Mail Overload and the Burden of "Academic Spam".Academic pathologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the academic world has been faced with much academic misconduct. Examples involve plagiarizing papers, manipulating data, and launching predatory or hijacked journals. The literature exposing these activities is growing exponentially, and so is the presentation of criteria or guidelines for counteracting the problem. Most of the research is focused on predatory or hijacked journal detection and providing suitable warnings. Overlooked in all this is the fact that papers published in these journals are questionable, but nevertheless show up in standard citation databases. We need some way to flag them so future researchers will be aware of their questionable nature and prevent their use in literature review.
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.