ArticleBMC medical education2024
Predatory publishing in medical education: a rapid scoping review.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Identifying Predatory Journals: A Practical Guide for Researchers.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- [Scientific fraud and dubious publication practices].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Review
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- "Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Predatory Publishing Awareness Among Dental Interns in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- "The Best Home for This Paper": A Qualitative Study of How Authors Select Where to Submit Manuscripts.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Factors associated with scientific production citations in dentistry: Zero-inflated negative binomial regression and hurdle modelling.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Getting Your First Publication in Medical Education-Why? What? Where? How?Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
backgroundAcademic publishing is a cornerstone of scholarly communications, yet is unfortunately open to abuse, having given rise to 'predatory publishers'- groups that employ aggressive marketing tactics, are deficient in methods and ethics, and bypass peer review. Preventing these predatory publishers from infiltrating scholarly activity is of high importance, and students must be trained in this area to increase awareness and reduce use. The scope of this issue in the context of medical students remains unknown, and therefore this sought to examine the breadth of the current literature base.
methodsA rapid scoping review was undertaken, adhering to adapted PRISMA guidelines. Six databases (ASSIA, EBSCO, Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) were systematically searched for content related to predatory publishing and medical students. Results were single-screened, facilitated by online reviewing software. Resultant data were narratively described, with common themes identified.
resultsAfter searching and screening, five studies were included, representing a total of 1338 students. Two predominant themes- understanding, and utilisation- of predatory publishers was identified. These themes revealed that medical students were broadly unaware of the issue of predatory publishing, and that a small number have already, or would consider, using their services.
conclusionThere remains a lack of understanding of the threat that predatory publishers pose amongst medical students. Future research and education in this domain will be required to focus on informing medical students on the issue, and the implication of engaging with predatory 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.