ArticleScientific reports2023
An open automation system for predatory journal detection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physicians' and Pharmacists' Awareness, Exposure, and Perception Regarding Predatory Solicitations at a Mother-Child Teaching Hospital.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2026Article
- Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of attitudes of university students towards artificial intelligence using data mining methods.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Estimating the predictability of questionable open-access journals.Science advances · 2025Article
- How To Cope With Predatory Journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- [Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?]Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The growing number of online open-access journals promotes academic exchanges, but the prevalence of predatory journals is undermining the scholarly reporting process. Data collection, feature extraction, and model prediction are common steps in tools designed to distinguish between legitimate and predatory academic journals and publisher websites. The authors include them in their proposed academic journal predatory checking (AJPC) system based on machine learning methods. The AJPC data collection process extracts 833 blacklists and 1213 whitelists information from websites to be used for identifying words and phrases that might indicate the presence of predatory journals. Feature extraction is used to identify words and terms that help detect predatory websites, and the system's prediction stage uses eight classification algorithms to distinguish between potentially predatory and legitimate journals. We found that enhancing the classification efficiency of the bag of words model and TF-IDF algorithm with diff scores (a measure of differences in specific word frequencies between journals) can assist in identifying predatory journal feature words. Results from performance tests suggest that our system works as well as or better than those currently being used to identify suspect publishers and publications. The open system only provides reference results rather than absolute opinions and accepts user inquiries and feedback to update the system and optimize performance.
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.