17. Impact of Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery Literature: Researchers Beware

Abstract

Body: Background: Predatory journals have exploited the open access (OA) publishing model and are considered as a major threat to the integrity of scientific research. The goal of this study is to characterize predatory publishing practices in plastic surgery. Methods: To identify potentially predatory journals (PPJs) in the field of plastic surgery, we searched the Cabells’ Predatory Reports and Beall’s List using pre-identified keywords. For presumed legitimate OA journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was queried. The characteristics of PPJs were compared to legitimate OA plastic surgery journals. Results: We identified a total of 25 plastic surgery-focused journals. Out of the 25 PPJs, only 15 journals had articles published within the last 5 years with a mean of 33±39 articles (range, 2-159). The mean number of predatory violations according to the Cabells’ criteria was 6.8±1.4 (range, 3-9). Using the DOAJ database, we identified a total of 24 plastic surgery-related journals. Compared to PPJs, DOAJ journals were more likely to be PubMed-indexed (0% vs. 50%, respectively, p<0.0001). Time to publication was significantly higher in the DOAJ journals (17±7 vs. 4±1 weeks; p=0.006). Despite higher article processing charges in the DOAJ group, this difference was not statically significant ($1425±717 vs. $1071±1060; p=0.13). Conclusion: Predatory journals are pervasive in the medical literature and plastic surgery is no exception. Plastic surgeons should practice due diligence when choosing a target journal for their articles. Journals with predatory practices should be distinguished from legitimate open access publication platforms