Ottwell Ryan, Hightower Brooke, Failla Olivia, Snider Kelsey, Corcoran Adam, Hartwell Micah, Vassar Matt
Department of Dermatology, St Jospeh Mercy, Ypsilanti, MI, United States.
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
JMIR Dermatol. 2022 Sep 14;5(3):e39365. doi: 10.2196/39365.
Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making.
The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs).
We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics.
Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics.
Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.
掠夺性出版是一种欺骗性的出版形式，它采用不道德的商业行为、极少或没有同行评审流程，或有限的编辑监督来发表文章。通过纳入质量差且不可用的数据，这可能会对我们最高标准的科学证据——系统评价产生问题，这些数据可能会误导结果、质疑结论并破坏信心。因此，掠夺性出版可能对科学研究和临床决策产生的影响受到越来越多的关注。
本研究的目的是评估顶级皮肤病学杂志发表的系统评价中是否包含在疑似掠夺性期刊（SPJ）上发表的原始研究。
我们在PubMed中搜索了2019年1月1日至2021年5月24日期间在排名前五的皮肤病学杂志（由5年h指数确定）上发表的系统评价。从每个系统评价中提取原始研究，并使用Beall列表和开放获取期刊目录对这些原始研究的发表期刊进行交叉引用。筛选和数据提取以盲法、重复的方式进行。我们进行卡方检验以确定系统评价纳入在SPJ上发表的原始研究与特定研究特征之间的可能关联。
我们的随机样本包括100篇系统评价，其中31篇（31%）被发现包含在SPJ上发表的原始研究。在排名前五的皮肤病学杂志中，《美国皮肤病学会杂志》包含在SPJ上发表的原始研究的系统评价最多。包含荟萃分析或注册方案的系统评价包含在SPJ上发表的原始研究的可能性显著降低。在其他研究特征之间未发现统计学上的显著关联。
在SPJ上发表的研究通常作为原始研究纳入高影响力皮肤病学杂志发表的系统评价中。需要进一步的研究来调查在科学研究中纳入疑似掠夺性出版物的影响。
