Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30288548›Full record

ReviewInternational orthopaedics2019

Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.

Markus Rupp, Lydia Anastasopoulou, Elke Wintermeyer, Deeksha Malhaan, Thaqif El Khassawna, Christian Heiss

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International orthopaedics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Tips and tricks for how to become a good reviewer.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. General and specialized Orthopaedics.International orthopaedics · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Markus RuppDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Giessen-Marburg GmbH, Campus Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Strasse 7, 35385, Giessen, Germany. markus.rupp@chiru.med.uni-giessen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7221-3783
Lydia AnastasopoulouDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Giessen-Marburg GmbH, Campus Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Strasse 7, 35385, Giessen, Germany.
Elke WintermeyerDepartment of Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center Tuebingen, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Schnarrenbergstrasse 95, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Deeksha MalhaanExperimental Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Aulweg 128, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Thaqif El KhassawnaExperimental Trauma Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Aulweg 128, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Christian HeissDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Giessen-Marburg GmbH, Campus Giessen, Rudolf-Buchheim-Strasse 7, 35385, Giessen, Germany.
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEBG Klinik Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predatory publishing is a major threat to contemporary publishing, as it offers 'to unaware scientist's', a quick open-access publication against fees without peer-review procedures.. Lack of peer-review leads to unethical practices, as plagiarism, publication of unscientific falsified data, and even unsafe clinical practices. As these journals threaten the credibility of academic publishing, significant work has been done from many scientific teams, in the last years, in establishing discriminating criteria between predatory and legitimate publishing. In the present review, we include mechanisms used by predatory editors to convince eager researchers to submit to their journals. We also provide useful links giving information about potential predatory journals and publishers, as well as scholarly writing. Joining the efforts of different scientific disciplines which compiled "green" lists with journals in their field, we conducted a "green" list with genuine orthopaedic research journals based on the directory of open-access journals (DOAJ) and Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. Ninety-six legitimate orthopaedic journals were identified based on the Thomson Reuters journal citation reports. One hundred thirty hits were found on the DOAJ site using the keywords "orthopaedics, orthopedics, sports medicine, musculoskeletal, trauma, traumatology, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, cartilage, bone, hand, shoulder, knee, hip, foot, wound." Twenty-one journals on the DOAJ site occurred overlapping with keywords. Researchers and clinicians in the field of orthopaedics are advised to use all available tools in order to recognize predatory practices and avoid publishing in predatory journals.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHumansOpen Access PublishingOrthopedicsPeer Review, ResearchPeriodicals as TopicLegitimate publishingOpen accessPredatory journals

Identifiers

PMID30288548
OpenAlexW2895573800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.