Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

Abstract

Background Systematic reviews appraise and synthesize the results from a body of literature. In healthcare, systematic reviews are also used to develop clinical practice guidelines. An increasingly common concern among systematic reviews is that they may unknowingly capture studies published in “predatory” journals and that these studies will be included in summary estimates and impact results, guidelines, and ultimately, clinical care. Findings There is currently no agreed-upon guidance that exists for how best to manage articles from predatory journals that meet the inclusion criteria for a systematic review. We describe a set of actions that authors of systematic reviews can consider when handling articles published in predatory journals: (1) detail methods for addressing predatory journal articles a priori in a study protocol, (2) determine whether included studies are published in open access journals and if they are listed in the directory of open access journals, and (3) conduct a sensitivity analysis with predatory papers excluded from the synthesis. Conclusion Encountering eligible articles published in presumed predatory journals when conducting a review is an increasingly common threat. Developing appropriate methods to account for eligible research published in predatory journals is needed to decrease the potential negative impact of predatory journals on healthcare.

Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map

“…Furthermore, the methodological research conducted by Fleming et al ( Fleming et al, 2014 ), reported that among 372 interventional systematic reviews, those published in clinical journals with higher IF appeared to have better methodological quality based on the AMSTAR tool. In general, rigorous peer-review and publication processes can improve the quality of publications ( Rice et al, 2021 ), and high-IF journals frequently adhere to the above processes. The research with funds support often needs to be strictly reviewed and assessed by their funders, which may potentially affect the methodological quality of MAs included in this systematic investigation.…”

Evidence of Violations of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes since the Adoption by the World Health Assembly in 1981: A Systematic Scoping Review Protocol

“…Articles considered to be from predatory journals or with commercial funding related to BMS will be marked in the data charting and analysis will be carried out both with and without those articles included. The presence of predatory articles and funding sources will be discussed where relevant [53].…”

Scientific Integrity and Misconduct—Yet Again

“…[12][13][14] Unfortunately, there are presently no standardized methods or guidelines for the exclusion of information from predatory journals, although some ideas are emerging. 14,15 In the meantime, authors, reviewers, and readers should remain vigilant for unreliable information in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.…”

“…11 Information from predatory journals is also now being increasingly captured in systematic reviews, and has the potential to warp their results and influence their conclusions. [12][13][14] Unfortunately, there are presently no standardized methods or guidelines for the exclusion of information from predatory journals, although some ideas are emerging. 14,15 In the meantime, authors, reviewers, and readers should remain vigilant for unreliable information in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.…”