ArticleAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2023
A Toolkit for Detecting Fallacious Calls for Papers from Potential Predatory Journals.
Article in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Estimating the predictability of questionable open-access journals.Science advances · 2025Article
- Email invitations to publish: Academically sound (such as SAFP) versus potentially predatory journals.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2024Article
- Unveiling the Hidden Menace: A Topic Modeling Analysis of Hijacked Medical Journals.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2024Article
- Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Flattering emails are crucial in tempting authors to submit papers to predatory journals. Although there is ample literature regarding the questionable practices of predatory journals, the nature and detection of spam emails need more attention. Current research provides insight into fallacious calls for papers from potential predatory journals and develops a toolkit in this regard. Methods: In this study, we analyzed three datasets of calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals using a text mining approach and R programming language. Results: Overall, most potential predatory journals use similar language and templates in their calls for papers. Importantly, these journals praise themselves in glorious terms involving positive words that may be rarely seen in emails from legitimate journals. Based on these findings, we developed a lexicon for detecting unsolicited calls for papers from potential predatory journals. Conclusion: We conclude that calls for papers from potential predatory journals and legitimate journals are different, and it can help to distinguish them. By providing an educational plan and easily usable tools, we can deal with predatory journals better than previously.
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.