• Something wrong with this record ?

Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers

Z. Munn, T. Barker, C. Stern, D. Pollock, A. Ross-White, M. Klugar, R. Wiechula, E. Aromataris, L. Shamseer

. 2021 ; 19 (8) : 1915-1923. [pub] 20210628

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

ABSTRACT: A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc22004181
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20220127145446.0
007      
ta
008      
220113s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.11124/JBIES-21-00138 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34171895
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Munn, Zachary $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
245    10
$a Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers / $c Z. Munn, T. Barker, C. Stern, D. Pollock, A. Ross-White, M. Klugar, R. Wiechula, E. Aromataris, L. Shamseer
520    9_
$a ABSTRACT: A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.
650    _2
$a posudkové řízení $7 D010380
650    12
$a periodika jako téma $7 D010506
650    _2
$a výzkumná zpráva $7 D058028
650    _2
$a systematický přehled jako téma $7 D000078202
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Barker, Timothy $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Stern, Cindy $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Pollock, Danielle $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Ross-White, Amanda $u Amanda Ross-White, Queen's University Library, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
700    1_
$a Klugar, Miloslav $u Czech National Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation (Cochrane Czech Republic, The Czech Republic [Middle European] Centre for Evidence-based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Masaryk University GRADE Center), Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Wiechula, Rick $u School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Aromataris, Edoardo $u JBI, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
700    1_
$a Shamseer, Larissa $u Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
773    0_
$w MED00207800 $t JBI evidence synthesis $x 2689-8381 $g Roč. 19, č. 8 (2021), s. 1915-1923
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34171895 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20220113 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20220127145443 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1751593 $s 1155330
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2021 $b 19 $c 8 $d 1915-1923 $e 20210628 $i 2689-8381 $m JBI evidence synthesis $n JBI Evid Synth $x MED00207800
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20220113

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...