Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified. PURPOSE: To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature. METHODS: A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed. RESULTS: The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature. CONCLUSION: The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

The effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication in the biomedical literature.

OBJECTIVE: This research measures the effectiveness of the practice of correction and republication of invalidated articles in the biomedical literature by analyzing the rate of citation of the flawed and corrected versions of scholarly articles over time. If the practice of correction and republication is effective, then the incidence of citation of flawed versions should diminish over time and increased incidence of citation of the republication should be observed. METHODS: This is a bibliometric study using citation analysis and statistical analysis of pairs of flawed and corrected articles in MEDLINE and Web of Science. RESULTS: The difference between citation levels of flawed originals and corrected republications does not approach statistical significance until eight to twelve years post-republication. Results showed substantial variability among bibliographic sources in their provision of authoritative bibliographic information. CONCLUSIONS: Correction and republication is a marginally effective biblioremediative practice. The data suggest that inappropriate citation behavior may be partly attributable to author ignorance.