ArticleJournal of academic librarianship2020
An Alert to COVID-19 Literature in Predatory Publishing Venues.
Article in Journal of academic librarianship, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Publications and retracted articles of COVID-19 pharmacotherapy-related research: A systematic review.Science progressPooled it
- Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
- Corona exhaustion (CORONEX): COVID-19-induced exhaustion grinding down humanity.Current research in behavioral sciences · 2021Article
- Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2021Article
- 10Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2021Article
- Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Paper mills and on-demand publishing: Risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2021Article
- The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19.Scientometrics · 2021Article
- Is there a need for creators of imaginary authors to face legal consequences?Croatian medical journal · 2020Article
- Information on COVID-19 and Psychological Distress in a Sample of Non-Health Workers during the Pandemic Period.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- World Lung Day 2020 at theAmerican journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2020Article
- Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID-19 environmental science and a fit-for-purpose evidence base.Ecological solutions and evidenceArticle
- COVID-19 Blind Spots: A Consensus Statement on the Importance of Competent Political Leadership and the Need for Public Health Cognizance.Journal of global infectious diseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to a flood of papers and preprints, has placed multiple challenges on academic publishing, the most obvious one being sustained integrity under the pressure to publish quickly. There are risks of this high volume-to-speed ratio. Many letters, editorials, and supposedly "peer reviewed" papers in ranked and indexed journals were published in a matter of days, suggesting that peer review was either fleeting or non-existential, or that papers were rapidly approved by editors based on their perceived interest and topicality, rather than on their intrinsic academic value. In academic publishing circles, the claim of "peer review", when in fact it has not been conducted, is a core characteristic of "predatory publishing", and is also a "fake" element that may undermine efforts in recent years to build trust in science's budding serials crisis. While the world is still centrally focused on COVID-19, the issue of "predatory publishing" is being ignored, or not being given sufficient attention. The risks to the scholarly community, academic publishing and ultimately public health are at stake when exploitative and predatory publishing are left unchallenged.
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.