ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2025
Navigating the academic waters: Strategies to avoid predatory journals and publish in indexed journals.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Publication pollution: The erosion of research ethics in the age of metrics.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.