ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
[Scientific fraud and dubious publication practices].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2026. 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.
- Comment on "Theranostic lipid nanocarriers for precision diagnosis and targeted therapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma".Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Questionable publication practices and predatory journals pose an increasing challenge to scientific integrity. These publication models advertise rapid publication times but lack essential quality controls such as peer-review processes, transparency, and charge high fees, which facilitates the dissemination of unreliable research findings. There is an increased risk, particularly for less experienced researchers, of unknowingly publishing in such journals or using their content uncritically. This can negatively impact individual career paths, the scientific community, and public perception of scientific knowledge. The article outlines the key characteristics of predatory journals and analyzes their potential consequences for science, as well as the quality and dissemination of research findings. Practical tools, such as checklists and established resources, are also presented to assist researchers in identifying and avoiding dubious publication offers. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of raising awareness about this issue to uphold scientific standards and ensure the long-term reliability of research.
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.