ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Identifying Predatory Journals: A Practical Guide for Researchers.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predatory journals are unethical publications that exploit researchers by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial oversight. They pose a serious threat to the integrity of scholarly communication, prioritizing profit over scholarship and disregarding ethical standards, which results in the dissemination of research that lacks quality and credibility. This guide offers researchers a practical framework to identify and avoid such deceptive publications, thereby protecting academic integrity and professional reputation. Key indicators of predatory journals include poor visual design, questionable content, and unethical business practices. Common red flags include unprofessional websites, grammatical errors, generic stock photos, and fabricated editorial credentials. Operational warnings include aggressive email solicitations promising rapid or guaranteed acceptance, vague or hidden article processing charges (APCs), and journal names that closely mimic reputable titles. Predatory journals also make false claims about indexing in databases like Scopus or PubMed and display fabricated impact factors. Researchers in biomedical engineering are particularly vulnerable to these risks because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, intense publication pressure, and the increasing use of AI tools in manuscript preparation. The consequences of predatory publishing extend beyond individual careers; unvetted research compromises the evidence base for clinical translation and healthcare innovation. To mitigate these risks, researchers must verify journal claims through official sources and consult trusted colleagues or mentors. Although publishing in legitimate journals requires more time, it ensures the quality, integrity, and credibility of research. Institutions play a crucial role by providing training and encouraging stakeholders to prioritize publication quality over quantity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42262700What 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.