ArticleBMJ open2020
Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expert-recommended tasks for hospital librarians during a healthcare system merger or acquisition: an e-Delphi consensus statement.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- [Publish well in anesthesiology: Quality standards and dealing with predatory journals].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigating the trustworthiness of research evidence used to inform public health policy: a qualitative interview study on the use of predatory journal citations in policy documents.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Article
- An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology.American journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Open access journal publication in health and medical research and open science: benefits, challenges and limitations.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Medical Resident Awareness of Predatory Journal Practices in an International Medical Education System.Medical education online · 2022Article
- Survey-based observational research: Quality, relevance and optimal use in the post-COVID-19 era.The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh · 2022Article
- Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2022Article
- Predatory journals and conferences: Analysis of invitation emails from a single clinician-scientist's inbox.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Canadian academics' use of predatory journals.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2021Article
- Commentary: Avoiding predatory publishing for early career ophthalmologists.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Wilfully submitting to and publishing in predatory journals - a covert form of research misconduct?Biochemia medica · 2021Article
- Present-day tools for assessing publishing integrity in biomedical science represent valuable work in progress.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers.
designThis is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals.
participantsThrough snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1.
resultsA total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a 'one-stop-shop' website to consolidate information on the topic and a 'predatory journal research observatory' to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers.
conclusionsIn bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.
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.