OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact. INTRODUCTION: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered. METHODS: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and, subsequently, full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/u8yrn.

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

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

College of Graduate Health Studies A T Still University Kirksville MI USA

EBHC South America Universidad Norbert Wiener Lima Peru

Health Evidence Synthesis Recommendations and Impact School of Public Health The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia

JBI Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences The University of Adelaide Adelaide SA Australia

Knowledge Translation Program Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute St Michael's Hospital Toronto ON Canada

Nuffield Department of Population Health University of Oxford Oxford UK

Queen's University Library Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Kingston ON Canada

School of Nursing Excelsior University New York NY USA

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Barker TH, Pollock D, Stone JC, Klugar M, Scott AM, Stern C, 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(3):370–81.

Aromataris E, Stern C, Lockwood C, Barker TH, Klugar M, Jadotte Y, et al. JBI series paper 2: tailored evidence synthesis approaches are required to answer diverse questions: a pragmatic evidence synthesis toolkit from JBI. J Clin Epidemiol 2022;150:196–202.

Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [internet]. Cochrane; 2019 [cited 2024 Apr 12]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook .

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64(4):383–94.

Bagues MF, Sylos Labini M, Zinovyeva N. A walk on the wild side: An investigation into the quantity and quality of “predatory” publications in Italian academia. LEM Working Paper Series; 2017.

Hayden JA. Predatory publishing dilutes and distorts evidence in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;121:117–9.

Van Noorden R. Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? Nature 2023;619(7970):454–8.

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. Res Synth Methods 2023;14(3):357–69.

Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One 2013;8(7):e68397.

Else H, Van Noorden R. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 2021;591(7851):516–9.

Ciaccio EJ. Use of artificial intelligence in scientific paper writing. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked 2023;41:101253.

Baber H, Nair K, Gupta R, Gurjar K. The beginning of ChatGPT - a systematic and bibliometric review of the literature. Inform Learn Sci 2024;125(7/8):587–614.

Munn Z, Barker T, Stern C, Pollock D, Ross-White A, Klugar M, et al. Should I include studies from “predatory” journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers. JBI Evid Synth 2021;19(8):1915–23.

Lock S. Lessons from the Pearce affair: handling scientific fraud. BMJ 1995;310(6994):1547–8.

van den Bor RM, Vaessen PWJ, Oosterman BJ, Zuithoff NPA, Grobbee DE, Roes KCB. A computationally simple central monitoring procedure, effectively applied to empirical trial data with known fraud. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;87:59–69.

Brown NJL, Heathers JAJ. The GRIM Test: a simple technique detects numerous anomalies in the reporting of results in psychology. Soc Psychol Person Sci 2017;8(4):363–9.

Schumm WR, Crawford DW, Lockett L. Using statistics from binary variables to detect data anomalies, even possibly fraudulent research. Psychol Res Appl 2019;1(4):112–18.

Heathers JA, Anaya J, van der Zee T, Brown NJ. Recovering data from summary statistics: sample parameter reconstruction via iterative techniques (SPRITE). Peer J Preprints 2018;2167–9843.

Bordewijk EM, Li W, van Eekelen R, Wang R, Showell M, Mol BW, et al. Methods to assess research misconduct in health-related research: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;136:189–202.

Peters M, Godfrey C, McInereney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Scoping Reviews. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet] JBI; 2020 [cited 2024 Apr 12]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global .

Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020;18(10):2119–26.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169(7):467–73.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18(1):143.

Clark JM, Sanders S, Carter M, Honeyman D, Cleo G, Auld Y, et al. Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Libr Assoc 2020;108(2):195–207.

Waffenschmidt S, Janzen T, Hausner E, Kaiser T. Simple search techniques in PubMed are potentially suitable for evaluating the completeness of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66(6):660–5.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6.

Pilla B, Jordan Z, Christian R, Kynoch K, McInerney P, Cooper K, 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;150:210–15.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10(1):1–11.