ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Indexing by Bibliographic Databases of Journals Published in the Developing World.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Article
- Burden and Characteristics of Unsolicited Emails from Medical/Scientific Journals, Conferences, and Webinars to Faculty and Trainees at an Academic Pathology Department.Journal of pathology informatics · 2019Article
- Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
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
The removal of Beall's blog may result in increased numbers of predatory journals and their subsequent victims. Recognizing this, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) suggested criteria for identifying predatory journals in a statement issued on February 18, 2017. These criteria may be helpful in the current scenario of scientific publishing. However, a few lapses and limitations need to be taken into account when translating these policies to the situation in developing countries. This letter presents several cases of legitimate journals and platforms from the developing world that may be erroneously categorized as predatory according to the WAME criteria. We also suggest some improvements in these journals' policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28321686What 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.