Predatory publications in evidence syntheses

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 57-61

  Ross White, Amanda ^a   Godfrey, Christina M ^a   Sears, Kimberley A ^a   Wilson, Rosemary ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ANIMAL; BIBLIOMETRICS; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

ANIMALS; BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; MANUSCRIPTS AS TOPIC; OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBMED; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85059256013     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: 15589439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.491     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Beall J. “Predatory” open-access scholarly publishers. Charleston Advisor. 2010 Apr;11(4): 10-7.
2. Bartholomew RE. Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals. J R Soc Med. 2014 Oct;107(10): 384-5.
3. Singh Chawla D. The undercover academic keeping tabs on ‘predatory’ publishing. Nature. 2018;555(7697): 422-3.
4. Harnad S. The dot-gold rush for open access. Open Access Archivangelism [Internet]. 15 Jul 2008 [cited 29 Mar 2018]. .
5. Brown C. Alleged predatory publisher buys medical journals. CMAJ. 2016 Nov 1;188(16): E398.
6. Brown C. Medical society journals face publishing woes. CMAJ. 2016 Nov 1;188(16): 1143.
7. Masic I. Predatory publishing - experience with OMICS International. Med Arch. 2017 Oct;71(5): 304-7.
8. Molteni M. The FTC is cracking down on predatory science journals. Wired [Internet]. 19 Sep 2016 [cited 27 Sep 2018]. .
9. Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief, Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group, (2016), no. 2: 16-cv-02022 (Nev. Dist. Ct. Aug. 25, 2016). (Available from: . [cited 27 Sep 2018].)
10. Munn Z, Moola S, Riitano D, Lisy K. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Aug;3(3): 123-8.
11. Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499): 1053.
12. Pluye P. Critical appraisal tools for assessing the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies included in systematic mixed studies reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Aug;19(4): 722.
13. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Sep 16;4: 22.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [updated Mar 2011; cited 27 Sep 2018]. .
15. Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual [Internet]. Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017 [cited 27 Sep 2018]. .
16. Laine C, Winker MA. Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2017 Jun 15;27(2): 285-91.
17. Beall J. Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers [Internet]. 2015 [updated 1 Jan 2015; cited 27 Sep 2018]. .
18. Dadkhah M, Lagzian M, Borchardt G. Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. J Cell Commun Signal. 2017 Jun;11(2): 181-5.
19. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 39.
20. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13: 131.
21. Halevi G, Moed H, Bar-Ilan J. Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation-review of the literature. J Informetr. 2017 Aug;11(3): 823-34.
22. Fagan JC. An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014-2016: implications for librarians’ practice and research agenda. Inf Technol Libr. 2017;36(2): 7-47.