ReviewFEMS microbiology letters2017
Due diligence in the open-access explosion era: choosing a reputable journal for publication.
Review in FEMS microbiology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Open Access, No-Fee Journals Indexed in PubMed and Scopus for Publishing Image Reports in Medical Research.Acta medica Lituanic · 2024Article
- Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System.Medical education online · 2022Article
- The Perils of Predatory Journals and Conferences.Malaysian orthopaedic journal · 2020Article
- Imaging Examination and Quantitative Detection and Analysis of Gastrointestinal Diseases Based on Data Mining Technology.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Predatory journals- Can we stem the rot?Journal of postgraduate medicineArticle
- Selecting a Journal for Publication: Criteria to Consider.Missouri medicineArticle
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
Faculty are required to publish. Naïve and "in-a-hurry-to-publish" authors seek to publish in journals where manuscripts are rapidly accepted. Others may innocently submit to one of an increasing number of questionable/predatory journals, where predatory is defined as practices of publishing journals for exploitation of author-pays, open-access publication model by charging authors publication fees for publisher profit without provision of expected services (expert peer review, editing, archiving, and indexing published manuscripts) and promising almost instant publication. Authors may intentionally submit manuscripts to predatory journals for rapid publication without concern for journal quality. A brief summary of the open access "movement," suggestions for selecting reputable open access journals, and suggestion for avoiding predatory publishers/journals are described. The purpose is to alert junior and seasoned faculty about predatory publishers included among available open access journal listings. Brief review of open access publication, predatory/questionable journal characteristics, suggestions for selecting reputable open access journals and avoiding predatory publishers/journals are described. Time is required for intentionally performing due diligence in open access journal selection, based on publisher/journal quality, prior to manuscript submission or authors must be able to successfully withdraw manuscripts when submission to a questionable or predatory journal is discovered.
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.