ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesTo compare the Article Processing Charges (APCs) and fee transparency between legitimate and potentially predatory urology journals.
methodsPotentially predatory journals were identified from unsolicited email solicitations sent to an academic urologist between December 2023 and January 2024. APC data were collected from the journals' websites and categorized based on fee transparency: no APC, non-transparent APCs, or transparent APCs. Legitimate journals were identified from the 69 urology journals listed in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons library. APCs for these journals were similarly collected and analyzed. We conducted a quantitative analysis with Chi-squared testing to compare categorical variables and a Mann-Whitney U-test to assess differences in APC values.
resultsA total of 214 potentially predatory journals were identified from 422 emails, originating from 75 different publishers. Solicitations spanned various disciplines, with only 7.35% from urology journals. Among potentially predatory journals, 3.7% claimed to have no APCs, 21.5% lacked fee transparency, and 74.8% disclosed their APCs, with a mean charge of 2272.50 USD (median 2000 USD; range 150-3690 USD). In contrast, legitimate journals had a mean APC of $3244.51 USD (median 3490 USD; range 635-6950 USD), with 11.6% offering publication without APCs.
conclusionAcademic urologists often face unsolicited invitations from predatory journals and encounter high APCs from legitimate journals. This dual challenge complicates researchers' decisions and can hinder access to reputable publication avenues. To alleviate this burden, institutions should consider financial support for researchers, and both publishers and researchers must prioritize transparency and caution in the open-access publishing landscape.
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.