ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Predatory publishing lists: a systematic review.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise of predatory journals threatens the integrity of academic publishing by exploiting open-access models and bypassing rigorous peer review. The lack of standardized criteria complicates their identification. This study systematically reviews existing predatory journal lists, assessing their effectiveness in enhancing transparency and safeguarding scholarly publishing. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, including lists identifying predatory journals from peer-reviewed sources or reputable organizations. Using relevant keywords, a comprehensive search was conducted across academic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ), grey literature, and publisher websites. Key variables extracted included governance, accessibility, update mechanisms, and identification criteria. A comparative analysis assessed transparency, evaluation processes, and gaps such as historical tracking and evolving criteria. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, median, and range, were calculated using SPSS Version 26.0. Ten lists identifying predatory journals were analyzed; six (60.0%) were established after 2017, and nine (90.0%) were publicly accessible. The majority (seven, 70.0%) covered journals and publishers, with nine (90.0%) relying on a manual review process for identification. Delisting criteria were unclear in eight (80.0%) of the lists. Most lists (six, 60.0%) were available in database format . In terms of updating frequency, one list (10.0%) was updated daily, and six lists (60.0%) did not specify their update frequency. While these lists help identify fraudulent publishing practices, criteria, updates, and delisting inconsistencies reduce their reliability. Standardized methodologies, transparency, and sustained efforts are needed to keep them relevant, ensuring they safeguard academic integrity and guide researchers toward credible publishing.
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.