Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40400613›Full record

ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2025

Navigating the academic waters: Strategies to avoid predatory journals and publish in indexed journals.

Yogesh Kumar, Sivasubramanian Nirangjhana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Yogesh KumarDepartment of Physiology, AIIMS, Patna, Bihar, India.
Sivasubramanian NirangjhanaDepartment of Physiology, AIIMS, Patna, Bihar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the vast expanse of academic publishing, researchers face a dual challenge of identifying legitimate avenues for dissemination while avoiding predatory journals. Predatory publishing, characterized by lax peer review, deceptive practices, and exorbitant fees, jeopardizes scholarly integrity and career progression. This paper explores the intricacies of predatory publishing, delineates its implications for researchers, and presents pragmatic strategies to navigate this landscape adeptly. Understanding the hallmarks of predatory journals, such as deficient peer review and misleading indexing claims, is paramount. Researchers risk reputational damage and hinder scientific progress by engaging with such venues. Moreover, the financial burden and ethical dilemmas associated with predatory publishing exacerbate the predicament. To combat this menace, researchers must employ vigilant vetting processes, consulting resources like Beall's List and DOAJ, while critically evaluating journal metrics and practices. Trusted mentors and disciplinary societies can offer invaluable guidance in identifying reputable outlets. Scrutinizing submission guidelines, peer-review procedures, and indexing status, alongside adherence to ethical standards, helps discern predatory from legitimate journals. By prioritizing transparency, integrity, and collaboration, researchers can navigate the complex publishing landscape, contributing to the advancement of knowledge while safeguarding scholarly integrity.

Indexed as

Academic publishingpeer reviewpredatory journalsscholarly integrity

Identifiers

PMID40400613
PMCPMC12094425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.