ArticlemicroLife2025
Storm over science: predatory practices and the fight for research reliability.
Article in microLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making scientific publishing more balanced and reversing the current dangerous drift to better support global environmental conservation and planetary health.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Publication Characteristics and Reporting Quality of GBD-Derived Burden of Disease Studies: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Lung Cancer.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Article
- Fragile research systems, brain drain, and predatory publishing in under-resourced countries.microLife · 2026Article
- Article
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
Scientific publishing faces a credibility crisis driven to a very large extent by predatory journals, paper mills, and exploitative open-access (OA) practices. Structural pressures-publish-or-perish culture, mandatory OA policies, and author publication charges-driven business models-fuel the proliferation of low-quality or fraudulent research, now exacerbated by artificial intelligence-generated content. This opinion, which aligns with a growing clamour from the research community-calls for an international journal accreditation system, guided by a transparent code of conduct and enforced by funding agencies, to restore integrity, prioritize quality over quantity for professional progression, and safeguard trust in scientific communication.
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.