Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

Adelaide Nursing School Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia

Center of Evidence based Education and Arts Therapies A JBI Affiliated Group Palacky University Olomouc Faculty of Education Olomouc Olomoucký Czech Republic

Cochrane Czech Republic Czech Republic A JBI Centre of Excellence Czech GRADE Network Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic Prague 2 Czech Republic

Health Evidence Synthesis Recommendations and Impact School of Public Health Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia

Institute for Evidence Based Healthcare Bond University Robina Queensland Australia

JBI School of Public Health Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia

Knowledge Translation Program Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute St Michael's Hospital Unity Health Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

Queen's University Library and Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality JBI Centre of Excellence Queen's University Kingston Ontario Canada

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Gough D, Davies P, Jamtvedt G, et al. Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): position statement. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):155. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01415-5

Grudniewicz A, Moher D, Cobey KD, et al. Predatory journals: No definition, no defence. Nature (London). 2019;576(7786):210-212. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y

Hayden JA. Predatory publishing dilutes and distorts evidence in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:117-119. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.013

Munn Z, Barker T, Stern C, et al. Should I include studies from “predatory” journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers. JBI Evid Synth. 2021;19(8):1915-1923. doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00138

Barker TH, Pollock D, Stone JC, et al. How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts. Res Synth Methods. 2023;14:370-381. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1613

Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77-84. doi:10.1002/nur.20362

Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-340. doi:10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Jordan Z, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, et al. JBI series paper 1: introducing JBI and the JBI model of EHBC. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;150:191-195. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.008

Pilla B, Jordan Z, Christian R, et al. JBI series paper 4: the role of collaborative evidence networks in promoting and supporting evidence-based health care globally: reflections from 25 years across 38 countries. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;150:210-215. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.009

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD, et al. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549(7670):23-25. doi:10.1038/549023a

Weibel S, Popp M, Reis S, Skoetz N, Garner P, Sydenham E. Identifying and managing problematic trials: a research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis. Research synthesis. Methods. 2022;14:357-369. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1599

Ross-White A, Godfrey CM, Sears KA, Wilson R. Predatory publications in evidence syntheses. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(1):57-61. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.491

Rice DB, Skidmore B, Cobey KD. Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):175. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01733-2

Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neuroscience. 2017;353:166-173. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.014

Mertkan S, Onurkan Aliusta G, Suphi N. Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: a systematic review. Res Eval. 2021;30(4):470-483. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvab032

Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res. 2018;7:1001. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15256.2

Ciro JB, Bowker L. Does a predator need prey? Examining the evolving terminology of predatory publishing. Canadian J Inf Library Sci. 2021;43(3):195-216.

Eriksson S, Helgesson G. Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’. Learn Publishing. 2018;31(2):181-183. doi:10.1002/leap.1135

Teixeira da Silva JA, Kimotho SG. Signs of divisiveness, discrimination and stigmatization caused by Jeffrey Beall's “predatory” open access publishing blacklists and philosophy. J Acad Libr. 2022;48(3):102418. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102418

Wager E. Why we should worry less about predatory publishers and more about the quality of research and training at our academic institutions. J Epidemiol. 2017;27(3):87-88. doi:10.1016/j.je.2017.01.001

Nielsen P, Davison RM. Predatory journals: a sign of an unhealthy publish or perish game? Inf Syst J. 2020;30(4):635-638. doi:10.1111/isj.12289

Vakil C. Predatory journals: authors and readers beware. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(2):92-94.

Xia J, Harmon JL, Connolly KG, Donnelly RM, Anderson MR, Howard HA. Who publishes in “predatory” journals? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(7):1406-1417. doi:10.1002/asi.23265

Kurt S. Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learn Publishing. 2018;31(2):141-147. doi:10.1002/leap.1150

Demir SB. Predatory journals: who publishes in them and why? J Informet. 2018;12(4):1296-1311. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008

Mills D, Inouye K. Problematizing ‘predatory publishing’: a systematic review of factors shaping publishing motives, decisions, and experiences. Learn Publishing. 2021;34(2):89-104. doi:10.1002/leap.1325

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8(3):1-21. doi:10.1177/160940690900800301