Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review

Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 181-185

  Dadkhah, Mehdi ^a   Lagzian, Mohammad ^a   Borchardt, Glenn ^b  

^a FERDOWSI UNIVERSITY OF MASHHAD   (Iran)

^b Progressive Science Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic ethics; Citation databases; Hijacked journals; Literature review; Predatory journals; Questionable papers

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTHOR; DATA BASE; FRAUD; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION STORAGE; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONALISM; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNIVERSITY;

EID: 85013066252     PISSN: 18739601     EISSN: 1873961X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Beall J (2013) Medical publishing triage–chronicling predatory open access publishers. Ann Med Surg 2(2):47–49. doi:10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9
2. Beall J (2016) Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean Med Sci 31(10):1511–1513. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511
3. Bhad R, Hazari N (2015) Predatory journals in psychiatry: a note of caution. Asian J Psychiatr 16:67–68. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2015.06.008
4. Bohannon J (2013) Who’s afraid of peer review. Science 342(6154):60–65. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60
5. Bohannon J (2015a) Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers. Science 348(6230):18–19. doi:10.1126/science.348.6230.18
6. Bohannon J (2015b) How to hijack a journal. Science 350(6263):903–905. doi:10.1126/science.350.6263.903
7. Dadkhah M, Borchardt G (2016) Hijacked journals: an emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthet Surg J 36(6):739–741. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw026
8. De Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández F, González-Molina A, Herrero-Solana V (2007) Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics 73(1):53–78. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4
9. Dyrud AM (2014). Predatory online technical journals: A question of ethics. In 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A, June 15–18, 2014
10. Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS (2016) Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open Access Journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. West J Emerg Med 17(5):497. doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328
11. Harzing AWK, Van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics 8(1):61–73
12. Jalalian M, Dadkhah M (2015) The full story of 90 hijacked journals from august 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica 19(2):73–87
13. Jalalian M, Mahboobi H (2014) Hijacked journals and predatory publishers: is there a need to re-think how to assess the quality of academic research? Walailak J Sci & Tech 11(5):389–394. doi:10.14456/WJST.2014.16
14. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307
15. Lopez-Cozar ED, Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D (2012) Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638
16. Nahai F (2015) The rise of predatory journals: what difference does it make? Aesthet Surg J 35(8):1042–1043. doi:10.1093/asj/sjv085
17. Osipov G, Smirnov I, Tikhomirov I, Sochenkov I, Shelmanov A, Shvets A (2014) Information retrieval for R&D support. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8830:45–69. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12511-4_4
18. Tin L, Ivana B, Biljana B, Ljubica IB, Dragan M, Dušan S (2014) Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers–a global outbreak with rising trend: a review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3):69–81