ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Scholarly publishing literacy and perceptions of predatory publishing among educational partners at a chiropractic college: a case report.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chiropractors must find, appraise, and apply high quality, peer-reviewed information sources to make evidence-based clinical practice decisions. This case report describes perceptions of scholarly publishing practices, with a focus on predatory and deceptive publishing, among chiropractic educational partners at one chiropractic college. Case Presentation: An anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey was administered to a convenience sample of 2,476 faculty, staff, and students. The 35-item questionnaire elicited publishing experience, critical appraisal skills, knowledge of scholarly and predatory publishing, and perceptions of chiropractic journals and information resources. Respondents (n=204, 111 students, 36 faculty, 16 administrators, and 41 staff) provided usable survey responses, though skipped items were common. Twenty-six percent had published one or more peer-reviewed publications. Most self-rated themselves as novice or intermediate in their ability to perform literature searches (87%) or critically appraise research articles (82%). Forty-six percent to 69% had not read or were unsure of the quality of scientific evidence for 11 chiropractic-related journals. Fifty-seven percent were unsure or unfamiliar with predatory journals and 51% lacked confidence in recognizing these journals. Predatory practices identified included insufficient or fast peer review, editorial board and impact factor issues, publication fees, plagiarized articles, and unsolicited request for paper submissions. Sixty-one percent requested training or resources on identifying quality academic journals for publication or research. Conclusion: Chiropractic educational partners were unfamiliar with most chiropractic journals and had little familiarity with predatory publishing. Targeted training on identifying quality academic publications, conducting literature reviews and critically appraising research articles is recommended.
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.