Analysis of potential predatory journals in radiology

Aribal, Serkan; İnce, Okan; Kaya, Eyüp; Önder, Hakan

doi:10.5152/dir.2020.20240

Cited by 9 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To choose the PPJs that publish articles related to language and (applied) linguistics, we used Beall's list of predatory journals, which is no longer curated by Beall but is managed and updated at https://beallslist.net by an anonymous postdoctoral researcher based in Europe. Similar to other studies (e.g., Arıbal et al, 2020; Demir, 2018; Kurt, 2018; Salehi et al, 2020; Shaghaei et al, 2018; Shamseer et al, 2017; Shen & Bjork, 2015; Xia, 2015), we relied on Beall's list because it is the most commonly used in the literature (Demir, 2018). We used Beall's list to identify potential rather than confirmed predatory journals in view of the various criticisms made of the list.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Arıbal et al (2020), the address of each journal (or its publisher) was checked by using Google Maps. If Google Maps showed the existence of such a place, we considered the address as existing and reliable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recorded information on the publication frequency of each journal, regularity in publishing, the number of articles published in 2020, acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, availability of guidelines for authors, existence of an aims/scope section and journal specialization. Following Arıbal et al (2020), the submission and acceptance dates, when available, of the last 10 articles published in each journal were noted, and the number of days in between was counted and averaged to compute the mean peer review time. To determine the specialization of a journal, we analysed the titles of the last 10 articles published in each journal.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been such studies on features of predatory journals in general and in several disciplinary areas (e.g., Shen & Bjork, 2015). For example, Arıbal et al (2020) examined features of predatory journals in radiology; Shamseer et al (2017) studied the differences between subscription‐based and predatory journals in biomedicine. As Soler and Wang (2019) noted, however, most of the extant studies focused on medical/life sciences and information sciences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Nejadghanbar

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined editorial differences between potential predatory and mainstream journals in the discipline of language and linguistics. A keyword search of the relevant journals on Beall's updated list of potential predatory journals led to a sample of 66 journals. An equal number of journals were selected from those indexed by Web of Science (WoS) via stratified random sampling. Analyses showed that the two groups of journals did not differ in terms of certain publication frequencies, mean number of annual articles, mention of peer review time, availability of the author guides and aims/scope sections, absence of editorial boards, mean number of editorial board numbers, article processing charge (APC) for open access, claimed indexation by ERIC and DOAJ and availability of ISSNs. However, these two groups of journals differed markedly in terms of contact information, years of editorial activity, certain publication frequencies, specialized focus, mention of acceptance rate, mean peer review time, claimed adoption of peer review, submission mode, listing of editors-in-chief, relevance of their expertise, mean number of editors, relevance of the editorial board members' expertise, mean APC, claimed indexation by Google Scholar/Scopus/WoS, reporting of fake impact factors, provision of Index Copernicus Value, claimed COPE membership, availability of ethical guidelines and various policies and existence of DOIs.These differences can be used as warning signs that a journal may not be legitimate.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Where predatory and mainstream journals differ: A study of language and linguistics journals

Nejadghanbar

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fast reviews and high acceptance rates are related to predatory journals [ 21 , 24 ]. It is possible to have a quick peer review if the manuscript is not reviewed or read at all, or if the reviewer simply skims the paper or does not require revisions [ 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quality of Statistical Reporting and Data Presentation in Predatory Dental Journals Was Lower Than in Non-Predatory Journals

Nieminen

Uribe

2021

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proper peer review and quality of published articles are often regarded as signs of reliable scientific journals. The aim of this study was to compare whether the quality of statistical reporting and data presentation differs among articles published in ‘predatory dental journals’ and in other dental journals. We evaluated 50 articles published in ‘predatory open access (OA) journals’ and 100 clinical trials published in legitimate dental journals between 2019 and 2020. The quality of statistical reporting and data presentation of each paper was assessed on a scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (high). The mean (SD) quality score of the statistical reporting and data presentation was 2.5 (1.4) for the predatory OA journals, 4.8 (1.8) for the legitimate OA journals, and 5.6 (1.8) for the more visible dental journals. The mean values differed significantly (p < 0.001). The quality of statistical reporting of clinical studies published in predatory journals was found to be lower than in open access and highly cited journals. This difference in quality is a wake-up call to consume study results critically. Poor statistical reporting indicates wider general lower quality in publications where the authors and journals are less likely to be critiqued by peer review.

show abstract