Peering into the dark corners of knowledge synthesis to understand the influence of predatory journals on systematic reviews

Abstract

Predatory journals and publishers are a well described and pervasive problem in research across the globe. Although their characteristics are often debated, an international consensus definition has described these journals and publishers as “entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices [ [1] Grudniewicz A. Moher D. Cobey K.D. Bryson G.L. Cukier S. Allen K. et al. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. Nature. 2019; 576: 210-212 Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar ].” These journals exist primarily to exploit the open access system of publication that has been adopted by the biomedical research community–they collect article processing charges while failing to deliver services provided by legitimate journals (e.g., editorial oversight, copyediting, arranging peer review, indexing in reputable sources). The global scale of this issue was acknowledged in the 2021 UNESCO World Science report, which emphasized the detrimental effect predatory journals are having on the quality of published research [ [2] UNESCOScience report: the race against time for smarter development. UNESCO Publishing, Paris2021 Google Scholar ]. A descriptive study found low prevalence of presumed predatory publications in a subset of Cochrane reviewsJournal of Clinical EpidemiologyPreviewTo examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard. Full-Text PDF