-
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
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Periodicals as Topic * MeSH
- Peer Review MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic MeSH
- Research Report MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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.
Amanda Ross White Queen's University Library Queen's University Kingston ON Canada
JBI Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia
Knowledge Translation Program Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute Unity Health Toronto Toronto ON Canada
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