ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2019
Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection among pregnant women in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection among pregnant women in Nigeria.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Common issues of systematic reviews in the sports and exercise medicine field.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Enhancing the quality and efficiency of regulatory science literature reviews through innovation and collaboration with library and information science experts.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Recognizing the value of meta-research and making it easier to find.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- 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
- Strategic science translation in emerging science: genetically modified crops and Bisphenol A in two cases of contested animal toxicity studies.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR dermatology · 2022Article
- Open access and predatory publishing: a survey of the publishing practices of academic pharmacists and nurses in the United States.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · 2022Article
- Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Predatory Open Access Journals are Indexed in Reputable Databases: a Revisiting Issue or an Unsolved Problem.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2020Review
- Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- SPI-Hub™: a gateway to scholarly publishing information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.
methodsThe authors downloaded citations of articles published by a known predatory publisher. Using forward reference searching in Google Scholar, we examined whether these publications were cited in systematic reviews.
resultsThe selected predatory publisher published 459 journals in the health and biomedical sciences. Sixty-two of these journal titles had published a total of 120 articles that were cited by at least 1 systematic review, with a total of 157 systematic reviews citing an article from 1 of these predatory journals. DISCUSSION: Systematic review authors should be vigilant for predatory journals that can appear to be legitimate. To reduce the risk of including articles from predatory journals in knowledge syntheses, systematic reviewers should use a checklist to ensure a measure of quality control for included papers and be aware that Google Scholar and PubMed do not provide the same level of quality control as other bibliographic databases.
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.