Open Access Physical Therapy Journals: Do Predatory Journals Publish Lower-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials?

Reliability of the PEDro scale: comparison between trials published in predatory and non-predatory journals

“…Indeed, some journals are included both in DOAJ and Beall’s lists, and this was the case also for one journal classified as PJ in the present study [ 15 ]. We may speculate that errors in classifying the included journals as PJs or NPJs might have reduced the observed differences between them.…”

“…Although there has been much discussion about the definition of “predatory” journals [ 10 ], the term, coined by Jeffrey Beall [ 11 ], is generally related to some open access periodicals that are suspected to prioritize self-interest and accept articles for publication without proper quality checks, collecting large amounts of money in author’s fees [ 12 ]. Indeed, this concern is supported by consistent recent findings showing that predatory journals (PJs), i.e., journals included in the Beall's list, have significantly shorter peer review processes than non-predatory journals (NPJs) [ 13 – 15 ]. We hypothesized that this shortcoming should increase the occurrence of ambiguity or incompleteness in methodological reporting, resulting in poor reliability of the PEDro scale in addition to making readers less confident in selecting interventions appropriate for application to practice.…”

“…This is a secondary analysis of a previous investigation aimed to compare the methodological quality of RCTs published in PJs and in NPJs in the field of physiotherapy [ 15 ]. A list of 18 physiotherapy journals, which were active during the period 2014–2017 and included either in the Beall list ( n = 9) or in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), were selected.…”

“…A list of 18 physiotherapy journals, which were active during the period 2014–2017 and included either in the Beall list ( n = 9) or in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), were selected. A detailed description of journals and trials selection process is available elsewhere [ 15 ].…”

Warum wir Forschungsprioritäten zur Vermeidung von Research Waste brauchen

“…B. die Berücksichtigung von Forschungsprioritäten [4], die Einbeziehung von Patientinnen und Patienten sowie der Gesellschaft in Forschungsprojekte [7], die (prospektive) Studienregistrierung und Publikation von Studienprotokollen [8], die Beachtung von Core Outcome Sets [9], Leitlinien zur Berichtserstattung von Forschungsergebnissen [10] sowie Preprints [11] und Open-Access-Publikationen [12]. Die Gefahr durch Publikationen in sogenannten Predatory Journals [13], in denen zunehmend Research Waste publiziert wird, ist dabei ein vergleichsweises neues Phänomenund auch für den Bereich Physiotherapie relevant [14,15]. Nicht zuletzt wurden, um die existierenden Probleme zu fokussieren und gleichzeitig die Leistungen redlicher Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler anzuerkennen, die Hong-Kong-Prinzipien formuliert [16].…”