Stop this waste of people, animals and money

  title={Stop this waste of people, animals and money},
  author={David Moher and Larissa Shamseer and Kelly Denise Cobey and Manoj Mathew Lalu and James Galipeau and Marc T. Avey and Nadera Ahmadzai and Mostafa Alabousi and Pauline Barbeau and Andrew Beck and Raymond Daniel and Robert A Frank and Mona Ghannad and Candyce Hamel and Mona Hersi and Brian Hutton and Inga Isupov and Trevor A. McGrath and Matthew D. F. McInnes and Matthew J. Page and Misty Pratt and Kusala Pussegoda and Beverley J. Shea and Anubhav Srivastava and Adrienne Stevens and Kednapa Thavorn and Sasha van Katwyk and Roxanne E. Ward and Dianna Wolfe and Fatemeh Yazdi and Ashley M. Yu and Hedyeh Ziai},
Our evidence disputes this view. We spent 12 months rigorously characterizing nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 journals thought likely to be predatory. More than half of the corresponding authors hailed from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Of the 17% of sampled articles that reported a funding source, the most frequently named funder was the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The United States produced more articles in our sample than… 

Predatory journals: a different pandemic

These examples are two of the more interesting e-mails I have received from predatory or fake journals, writing to solicit an article, or offer a position on an editorial board or as a manuscript

Predatory Publishers/Journals in Medical Sciences: How to Avoid, Stop, and What to Do after Being Scammed by Them?

The practice of publishing in the predatory journals needs to be addressed; raising this topic in all academic and research institutions may help minimize the impacts.

Knowledge and motivations of researchers publishing in presumed predatory journals: a survey

The research suggests that common views about predatory journals may not always be true, and that a grey zone between legitimate and presumed predatory journals exists.

The scam of the research world: the predatory practices

The authors have highlighted the ever-spreading menace of fake research and predatory journalism in the medicine by choosing the journals, which are willing to publish for money, without rigorous peer-review.

Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study

Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices.

Predatory journals: Do not judge journals by their Editorial Board Members

The results dispute the common belief that it is possible to identify predatory journals by checking their editorial boards, and scientists should not rely on the editors to determine if a journal is predatory.

Readers beware! Predatory journals are infiltrating citation databases

C Citation databases are contaminated with publications of questionable quality originating from so-called predatory journals, and the integrity and usefulness of citation databases, on which the authors rely as sources of trustworthy research, are now being called in question.

Being a Deliberate Prey of a Predator – Researchers’ Thoughts after having Published in a Predatory Journal

A central question concerning scientific publishing is how researchers select journals to which they submit their work, since the choice of publication channel can make or break researchers. The

Canadian academics’ use of predatory journals

  • M. Babb
  • Education
    The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association
  • 2021
Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has

Publishing in black and white: the relevance of listing of scientific journals

In this narrative review, mechanisms that authors can employ to white list genuine scientific journals and blacklist “predatory” ones are discussed.



Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals are identified may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.

Who publishes in “predatory” journals?

It is believed that economic and sociocultural conditions in these developing countries have contributed to the differences found in authorship between “predatory” and “nonpredatory" journals.

‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics

Despite a total number of journals and publishing volumes comparable to respectable open access journals, the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries, where the academic evaluation practices strongly favor international publication, but without further quality checks.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

Investigation of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs suggests that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade.

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials

Objectives To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki and the International

Trial Registration Numbers Are Underreported in Biomedical Publications

The results show that further promotion and implementation of trial registration and accurate reporting of TRN is still needed and this might be helped by inclusion of the TRN as an item on the CONSORT checklist.

Who's afraid of peer review?

Dozens of open-access journals targeted in an elaborate Science sting accepted a spoof research article, raising questions about peer-review practices in much of the open-access world.

Two Years Later: Journals Are Not Yet Enforcing the ARRIVE Guidelines on Reporting Standards for Pre-Clinical Animal Studies

A study by David Baker and colleagues reveals poor quality of reporting in pre-clinical animal research and a failure of journals to implement the ARRIVE guidelines.

Predatory journals in Scopus (IDEA, 2017); available at http:// Supplementary information and a full list of authors accompanies this article online: see go.nature

  • 2017

Predatory journals in Scopus (IDEA

  • 2017