Otto Loewi Research Center, Pharmacology Section, Medical University of Graz, AT-8010 Graz, Austria.
Acta Derm Venereol. 2019 Jan 1;99(1):58-62. doi: 10.2340/00015555-3037.
The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and influence of predatory journals in the field of dermatology in Austria. A total of 286 physicians (50.5% men) completed a questionnaire. The vast majority of subjects read scientific articles (n = 281, 98.3%) and took them into consideration in their clinical decision-making (n = 271, 98.5% of participants that regularly read scientific literature). Open access was known by 161 (56.3%), predatory journals by 84 (29.4%), and the Beall's list by 19 physicians (6.7%). A total of 117 participants (40.9%) had been challenged by patients with results from the scientific literature, including 9 predatory papers. Participants who knew of predatory journals had a higher level of education as well as scientific experience, and were more familiar with the open-access system (p < 0.001). These results indicate that the majority of dermatologists are not familiar with predatory journals. This is particularly the case for physicians in training and in the early stages of their career.
本研究旨在评估奥地利皮肤科领域掠夺性期刊的知识和影响。共有 286 名医生(50.5%为男性)完成了一份问卷。绝大多数研究对象阅读科学文章(n=281,占 98.3%),并在临床决策中考虑这些文章(n=271,占定期阅读科学文献的参与者的 98.5%)。161 名参与者(56.3%)知道开放获取,84 名参与者(29.4%)知道掠夺性期刊,19 名参与者(6.7%)知道 Beall's 名单。共有 117 名参与者(40.9%)曾被患者用科学文献的结果提出质疑,其中包括 9 篇掠夺性论文。了解掠夺性期刊的参与者具有更高的教育水平和科学经验,并且更熟悉开放获取系统(p<0.001)。这些结果表明,大多数皮肤科医生不熟悉掠夺性期刊。对于培训中的医生和处于职业生涯早期的医生来说,这种情况尤其如此。