Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?—a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

O’Kelly, Fardod; Fernandez, Nicolas; Koyle, Martin A.

doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.08.019

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 A study about the characteristics of indexed publications in paediatric urology investigated whether any open access publications could be classified as low-quality; 6.5% of open access journals in paediatric urology were subsequently classified as being low-quality. 35 There are some limitations in this study. The analysed journals covered a broad spectrum of topics, including journals that focused on highly academic topics and fundamental research that may or may not be relevant to a community pharmacist's everyday practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the quality of pharmacy journals accessible to community pharmacists

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…A study about the characteristics of indexed publications in paediatric urology investigated whether any open access publications could be classified as low‐quality; 6.5% of open access journals in paediatric urology were subsequently classified as being low‐quality. 35 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the quality of pharmacy journals accessible to community pharmacists

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The estimate of the profit was about $75 million [5]. Recently, a federal judge in All scientific disciplines seem to be involved, including biomedical fields [7][8][9][10][11][12]. In 2017, a study by Moher et al demonstrated that a sample of 1907 articles contained data on more than 2 million individuals and 8000 animals [13**].…”

Section: Headings 'We Would Be Pleased To Receive Your Article…': Thementioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts

Cortegiani

Manca

Giarratano

2020

Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review-Predatory publishing poses a serious educational end ethical threat to the credibility of science. The aim of this review is to discuss the main features of this deceptive open-access model, its potential consequences and relevance for the whole scientific community. Recent findings-Recent reports showed that scholars and clinicians from all research fields, including anesthesiology, are facing an alarming invasion of predatory journals and, more recently, fake conferences. This review discusses key elements of these phenomena and proposes countermeasures to tackle the problem. Summary-Predatory journals and conferences are two sides of the same coin. As here reviewed, their deceptive practices have negative implications for scientists and clinicians, both educational and ethical. These range from publication of experimental data that are unreliable and poorly verified to inflated curricula and 'doped' academic careers. Because clinical practice is heavily based on research data, a solution is needed to ultimately ensure patients' safety.

show abstract

“…Scientific societies, universities, and governments are boycotting manuscripts from some publishers, refusing to negotiate with publishers on subscription fees, or discontinuing subscriptions altogether without open access availability of articles in general or articles published by researchers within their system or country (e.g., Ellis, 2018;Else, 2019). shown the same open access advantage or higher journal-level impact factors (e.g., Atayero, Popoola, Egeonu, & Oludayo, 2018;Chua et al, 2017;O'Kelly, Fernandez, & Koyle, 2019)although this discrepancy may be tied to reputations of purely on-line and open access journals that tend to have higher acceptance rates and may be viewed with more skepticism than more traditional academic journals (see Kitayama, 2020, for commentary). Thus, there is the possibility of moderating factors such as research design, sub-area of science, and purely open access journals that can be more rigorously tested as areas for future research.…”

Section: Crossref Citationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics

Clayson¹,

Baldwin²,

Larson³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Replication failures of influential findings across fields of science have contributed to a credibility crisis, and the sub-area of human electrophysiology has not escaped unscathed. In an effort to restore credibility, recent initiatives aim to improve methodological rigor of research via transparency and openness. We sought to determine the impact of such initiatives on open access publishing in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and the impact of open access on the attention articles received in the scholarly literature and other outlets. Data for 35,144 articles across 967 journals from the last 20 years were examined. Approximately 35% of articles were open access, and the rate of publication of open-access articles increased over time. Open access articles showed 9 to 21% more PubMed and CrossRef citations and 39% more Altmetric mentions than closed access articles. Green open access articles (i.e., author archived) did not differ from non-green open access articles with respect to citations and were related to higher Altmetric mentions. These findings demonstrate that open-access publishing is increasing in popularity in the sub-area of human electrophysiology and that open-access articles enjoy the “open access advantage” in citations similar to the larger scientific literature. The benefit of the open access advantage may motivate researchers to make their publications open access and pursue publication outlets that support it. In consideration of the direct connection between citations and journal impact factor, journal editors may improve the accessibility and impact of published articles by encouraging authors to self-archive manuscripts on preprint servers.

show abstract

Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?—a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology

Cited by 16 publications

References 26 publications

Assessing the quality of pharmacy journals accessible to community pharmacists

Assessing the quality of pharmacy journals accessible to community pharmacists

Predatory journals and conferences: why fake counts

The Open Access Advantage for Studies of Human Electrophysiology: Impact on Citations and Altmetrics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About