ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2020
Faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory open access journals: a needs assessment study.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Has open access in neurosurgery made access easier but sharing harder? A National survey from an LMIC (Turkey).Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals.Heliyon · 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
- Unsolicited solicitations: identifying characteristics of unsolicited emails from potentially predatory journals and the role of librarians.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 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
- Awareness of predatory journals and open access publishing among orthopaedic and trauma surgeons - results from an online survey in Germany.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of predatory open access (OA) journals is primarily to make a profit rather than to disseminate quality, peer-reviewed research. Publishing in these journals could negatively impact faculty reputation, promotion, and tenure, yet many still choose to do so. Therefore, the authors investigated faculty knowledge and attitudes regarding predatory OA journals.
methodsA twenty-item questionnaire containing both quantitative and qualitative items was developed and piloted. All university and medical school faculty were invited to participate. The survey included knowledge questions that assessed respondents' ability to identify predatory OA journals and attitudinal questions about such journals. Chi-square tests were used to detect differences between university and medical faculty.
resultsA total of 183 faculty completed the survey: 63% were university and 37% were medical faculty. Nearly one-quarter (23%) had not previously heard of the term "predatory OA journal." Most (87%) reported feeling very confident or confident in their ability to assess journal quality, but only 60% correctly identified a journal as predatory, when given a journal in their field to assess. Chi-square tests revealed that university faculty were more likely to correctly identify a predatory OA journal (
conclusionsSurvey results show that faculty recognize predatory OA journals as a problem. These attitudes plus the knowledge gaps identified in this study will be used to develop targeted educational interventions for faculty in all disciplines at our university.
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.