4.5 Article

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

期刊

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1684

关键词

evidence synthesis; methodology; predatory journal; predatory publishing; qualitative research; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predatory journals, which publish studies with a higher likelihood of containing false data, are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia. This paper explores the opinions and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies from these journals in evidence syntheses. The findings suggest that evidence synthesisers struggle to identify predatory journals and there is currently no consensus on how to manage these studies.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据