Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38990307›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024

The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review.

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly, Jens C Türp, Bernhard A Sabel, Graham Kendall

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Miki-cho, Japan. jaimetex@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-2772
Timothy DalyBioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina. tdaly@flacso.org.ar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1650-242X
Jens C TürpDepartment of Oral Health & Medicine, University Center for Dental Medicine UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. jens.tuerp@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-4317
Bernhard A SabelInstitute of Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Leipziger Straße 44, Magdeburg, 39120, Germany. bernhard.sabel@med.ovgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4472-5543
Graham KendallSchool of Engineering and Computing, MILA University, No. 1, Persiaran MIU, 71800 Putra Nilai, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia. Graham.Kendall@mila.edu.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2006-5103

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the use of third-party services (TPS) by academics to assist as "publication consultants" in scholarly publishing. TPS provide a wide range of scholarly services to research teams that lack the equipment, skills, motivation, or time to produce a paper without external assistance. While services such as language editing, statistical support, or graphic design are common and often legitimate, some TPS also provide illegitimate services and send unsolicited e-mails (spam) to academics offering these services. Such illegitimate types of TPS have the potential to threaten the integrity of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In extreme cases, for-profit agencies known as "paper mills" even offer fake scientific publications or authorship slots for sale. The use of such illegitimate services as well as the failure to acknowledge their use is an ethical violation in academic publishing, while the failure to declare support for a TPS can be considered a form of contract fraud. We discuss some literature on TPS, highlight services currently offered by ten of the largest commercial publishers and expect authors to be transparent about the use of these services in their publications. From an ethical/moral (i.e., non-commercial) point of view, it is the responsibility of editors, journals, and publishers, and it should be in their best interest to ensure that illegitimate TPS are identified and prohibited, while publisher-employed TPS should be properly disclosed in their publications.

Indexed as

PublishingAuthorshipHumansEnglishEthicsLanguage editingOutsourcingSupportTranslationUnethical behavior

Identifiers

PMID38990307
PMCPMC11582143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.