Martinino Alessandro, Campagnoli Gabriele, Dallavalle Sofia, Soto Allison, Pouwels Sjaak, Smeenk Frank
Surgery, Duke University, Durham, USA.
General Surgery, International Medical School, Università degli Studi di Milano (La Statale), Milan, ITA.
Cureus. 2024 Jul 16;16(7):e64674. doi: 10.7759/cureus.64674. eCollection 2024 Jul.
This systematic review aims to identify the countries most active in combatting predatory journals and their definitions of such practices. It also seeks to assess awareness within academic communities, examine the impact of predatory journals on research quality and integrity, and compile existing policies to mitigate their negative effects and strengthen global scholarly integrity. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on February 7, 2024, in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The focus was solely on identifying studies that examined the unique experiences and interventions associated with predatory journals in distinct national contexts. The analysis included a presentation of quantitative results and a thematic examination of qualitative data. A total of 40 articles covering 19 countries were included. Twenty-four countries (60%) were in Asia, 11 (27.5%) in Africa, two (5%) in Europe, and one (2.5%) each in Australia, North America, and South America. Although not all articles cited Beall's list to identify predatory journals, the thematic analysis showed consistent topics across various definitions and Beall's themes. Our analysis identified factors affecting academic publishing perceptions globally, highlighting publication pressure, predatory practices, and policy impacts on ethics and standards. This systematic review examined the literature on predatory publishing and identified the leading countries in the fight against these predatory publications. This analysis underscores a complex interplay of factors affecting academic publishing globally, from the push towards predatory journals as a response to publishing pressures, to the critical role of government and institutional frameworks.
本系统评价旨在确定在打击掠夺性期刊方面最为积极的国家及其对这类行为的定义。它还旨在评估学术社群内部的认知情况，审视掠夺性期刊对研究质量和诚信的影响，并汇编现有政策以减轻其负面影响并加强全球学术诚信。2024年2月7日，我们依据系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南，在PubMed、Scopus和Embase数据库中进行了系统检索。重点仅在于识别那些考察了不同国家背景下与掠夺性期刊相关的独特经验和干预措施的研究。分析包括定量结果的呈现以及对定性数据的主题审查。总共纳入了涵盖19个国家的40篇文章。其中有24个国家（60%）在亚洲，11个国家（27.5%）在非洲，2个国家（5%）在欧洲，澳大利亚、北美洲和南美洲各有1个国家（各占2.5%）。尽管并非所有文章都引用了Beall清单来识别掠夺性期刊，但主题分析显示，在各种定义和Beall的主题中存在一致的主题。我们的分析确定了全球范围内影响学术出版认知的因素，突出了出版压力、掠夺性做法以及政策对伦理和标准的影响。本系统评价审视了关于掠夺性出版的文献，并确定了在打击这些掠夺性出版物方面处于领先地位的国家。这一分析强调了全球范围内影响学术出版的各种因素之间复杂的相互作用，从因应出版压力而转向掠夺性期刊，到政府和机构框架的关键作用。
