Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research

International Orthopaedics

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 509-517

  Rupp, Markus ^a,b   Anastasopoulou, Lydia ^a,b   Wintermeyer, Elke ^c   Malhaan, Deeksha ^b   El Khassawna, Thaqif ^b   Heiss, Christian ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GIESSEN   (Germany)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Legitimate publishing; Open access; Predatory journals

Indexed keywords

BONE; CARTILAGE; FOOT; HAND; HIP; HUMAN; KNEE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MUSCULOSKELETAL INJURY; ORTHOPEDICS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OSTEOPOROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SHOULDER; SPORTS MEDICINE; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; ORTHOPEDICS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85054601798     PISSN: 03412695     EISSN: 14325195     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-4179-1     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Cowell HR. A brief history of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. (0009-921X (Print))
2. Schwarzmann-Schafhauser D (2004) Orthopädie im Wandel: die Herausbildung von Disziplin und Berufsstand in Bund und Kaiserreich (1815-1914). Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart
3. Ginsparg P (2006) As we may read. J Neurosci 26(38):9606–9608. 10.1523/jneurosci.3161-06.2006
4. Sanchez-Martin FM, Millan Rodriguez F, Villavicencio Mavrich H. [The Open Access Initiative (OAI) in the scientific literature] (La Iniciativa Open Access (OAI) en la literatura cientifica.). (0210–4806 (Print))
5. Till JE. Success factors for open access. (1438–8871 (Electronic))
6. Suber P, Brown P, Cabell D, Coll (2003) The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access Publishing
7. Beall J. Best practices for scholarly authors in the age of predatory journals. (1478–7083 (Electronic))
8. Clark J, Smith R (2015) Firm action needed on predatory journals. Br Med J 350
9. Shyam A. Predatory journals: what are they? (2250–0685 (Print))
10. Beall JA. Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. (1598–6357 (Electronic))
11. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. (1476–4687 (Electronic))
12. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. (1330–0962 (Print))
13. Reves J, Silva BM, Durao J, Ribeiro NV, Lemos S, Escada P. Predatory publishing: an industry that is threatening science. (1646–0758 (Electronic))
14. Shen C, Bjork BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. (1741–7015 (Electronic))
15. M MVaS (2017) Predatory Journals in Scopus, Institute for Democracy and Economic Analysis
16. Umlauf MG, Mochizuki Y. Predatory publishing and cybercrime targeting academics. (1440-172X (Electronic))
17. A M (2017) Discussing predatory journals – EASE at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity
18. COPE D, OASPA, WAME (2015) Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing
19. Power HA. Predatory publishing: how to safely navigate the waters of open access. (0844–5621 (Print))
20. Pearson GS (2017) Avoiding predatory journals with “think. check. submit”. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc 23(4):239–240. 10.1177/1078390317716883
21. National Institute of Health UNLoM (2017) Fact sheet MEDLINE journal selection. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/jsel.html. Accessed 15 June 2018
22. Beall J (2012) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 1st edn
23. Beall J (2012) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 2nd edn
24. Beall J (2015) Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers, 3rd edn
25. Beall J. Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. (1476–4687 (Electronic))
26. Beall J (2015) Beall’s List
27. Anderson R (2017) Cabell’s new predatory journal blacklist: a review
28. Silver A (2017) Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch. Nature
29. Nelson N, Huffman J (2015) Predatory journals in library databases: how much should we worry? Ser Libr 69(2):169–192. 10.1080/0361526X.2015.1080782
30. Witham MD, Runcie H (2017) Turning predator into prey–the problem of predatory journals. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 10.4997/JrcPe.2017.101
31. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. (1741–7015 (Electronic))
32. Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD,Coll. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. (1476–4687 (Electronic))
33. Al-Khatib AA, Teixeira da Silva JA. Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? LID. 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5. (1471–5546 (Electronic))
34. Clark J. Letter to the Editor - predatory journals: bad for all but especially authors from low and middle income countries. (1646–0758 (Electronic))
35. Saha I, Paul B. Research submission: some technicalities and vital links. (0377–1237 (Print))
36. Davis CH, Bass BL, Behrns KE, Lillemoe KD, Garden OJ, Roh MS, Lee JE, Balch CM, Aloia TA. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals. (2058–8615 (Electronic))
37. Das AK. Publish and flourish: take the road less travelled! (0377–1237 (Print))
38. Bowman DE, Wallace MB. Predatory journals: a serious complication in the scholarly publishing landscape. (1097–6779 (Electronic))
39. Moverley R, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Davidson DJ, Reed M, Sprowson AP. Impact factors of orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2010: trends and comparisons with other surgical specialties. (1432–5195 (Electronic))
40. Okike K, Kocher MS, Torpey JL, Nwachukwu BU, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M. Level of evidence and conflict of interest disclosure associated with higher citation rates in orthopedics. (1878–5921 (Electronic))
41. Scarlat MM, Mavrogenis AF, Pećina M, Niculescu M (2015) Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics. Int Orthop 39(8):1459–1464
42. Urrutia J, Zamora T, Prada C. The fifty most cited Latin-American articles in the orthopaedic literature. (1432–5195 (Electronic))
43. Mavrogenis AF, Megaloikonomos PD, Panagopoulos GN, Mauffrey C, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2017) Best one hundred papers of International Orthopaedics: a bibliometric analysis. Int Orthop 41(4):689–697
44. Wicherts JM. Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals. (1932–6203 (Electronic))
45. Cintas P. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices. LID. 10.1093/femsle/fnw115. (1574–6968 (Electronic))
46. Ferris LE, Winker MA. Ethical issues in publishing in predatory journals. (1330–0962 (Print))
47. medical press. (1879-730X (Electronic))
48. Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. LID. 10.1111/jdv.15039. (1468-3083 (Electronic))
49. Weiss A, Lambert WC, Parish LC. Predatory journals: harmful to patients, the public, and the integrity of scientific research. (1540–9740 (Print))
50. Moher D, Moher E. Stop predatory publishers now: act collaboratively. (1539–3704 (Electronic))
51. Mauffrey C, Scarlat MM, Pećina M (2014) Setting standards for medical writing in orthopaedics. Int Orthop 38(1):1–5
52. Hinsenkamp M (2014) XXVI SICOT triennial world congress and the forty sixth SBOT annual meeting. Springer
53. Sabharwal S, Patel N, Johal K. Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research. (1432–5195 (Electronic))
54. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. (1873–7544 (Electronic))
55. List UG (2017)
56. Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS. Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. (1936–9018 (Electronic))
57. Analytics C. Master journal list