This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Dermatology, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://derma.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
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
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.
Predatory publishing is described as a “nebulous concept of research journal publishers who use unethical business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles that are below a minimally accepted standard of quality” [
We searched PubMed (using the Advanced Search filters) for SRs published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 01, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The returned SRs (N=339) were downloaded as a comma-separated values file. We randomized the returns and selected the first 100 articles to examine. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall’s List (archived and updated versions [
This study did not use human subjects and thus did not require institutional review board oversight.
Our randomized sample included 100 SRs, of which 31 (31%) SRs were found to contain a primary study published in an SPJ. A total of 53 primary studies were published across 22 unique SPJs. Of the top five dermatology journals, the
Characteristics of systematic reviews with and without primary studies published in predatory journals (N=100).
Study characteristics | Contains a primary study published in a suspected predatory journal, n (%) | Chi-square ( |
||||||
|
No | Yes | Total |
|
|
|||
|
3.69 (4,1) | .45 | ||||||
|
|
26 (26) | 17 (17) | 43 (43) |
|
|
||
|
|
12 (12) | 4 (4) | 16 (16) |
|
|
||
|
|
1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) |
|
|
||
|
|
19 (19) | 8 (8) | 27 (27) |
|
|
||
|
|
11 (11) | 2 (2) | 13 (13) |
|
|
||
|
0.64 (2,1) | .07 | ||||||
|
2019 | 24 (24) | 13 (13) | 37 (37) |
|
|
||
|
2020 | 30 (30) | 11 (11) | 41 (41) |
|
|
||
|
2021 | 15 (15) | 7 (7) | 22 (22) |
|
|
||
|
9.38 (1,1) | .002 | ||||||
|
No | 20 (20) | 19 (19) | 39 (39) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 49 (49) | 12 (12) | 61 (61) | ||||
|
2.69 (1,1) | .10 | ||||||
|
No | 47 (47) | 26 (26) | 73 (73) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 22 (22) | 5 (5) | 27 (27) |
|
|
||
|
0.06 (1,1) | .81 | ||||||
|
No | 36 (36) | 17 (17) | 53 (53) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 33 (33) | 14 (14) | 47 (47) |
|
|
||
|
0.39 (1,1) | .53 | ||||||
|
No | 53 (53) | 22 (22) | 75 (75) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 16 (16) | 9 (9) | 25 (25) |
|
|
||
|
0.15 (1,1) | .70 | ||||||
|
No | 35 (35) | 17 (17) | 52 (52) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 34 (34) | 14 (14) | 48 (48) |
|
|
||
|
0.90 (1,1) | .34 | ||||||
|
No | 47 (47) | 24 (24) | 71 (71) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 22 (22) | 7 (7) | 29 (29) |
|
|
||
|
3.77 (1,1) | .05 | ||||||
|
No | 14 (14) | 12 (12) | 26 (26) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 55 (55) | 19 (19) | 74 (74) |
|
|
||
|
1.66 (2,1) | .44 | ||||||
|
RCTs only | 12 (12) | 4 (4) | 16 (16) |
|
|
||
|
NRSIs only | 37 (37) | 14 (14) | 51 (51) |
|
|
||
|
Both RCTs and NRSIs | 20 (20) | 13 (13) | 33 (33) |
|
|
||
|
5.78 (1,1) | .02 | ||||||
|
No | 41 (41) | 26 (26) | 67 (67) |
|
|
||
|
Yes | 28 (28) | 5 (5) | 33 (33) |
|
|
aRCT: randomized controlled trial.
bNRSI: nonrandomized studies of interventions.
We found that studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in SRs published in high-impact dermatology journals. SRs that contained a meta-analysis were less likely to have a primary study published in an SPJ, which is a promising finding, as research has shown that studies published in predatory journals are of lower quality [
Our study’s limitations include only searching SRs using PubMed and only using Beall’s List and DOAJ lists of questionable journals. Additionally, authors of SRs included in this study may have unknowingly included an SPJ, as some SPJs were added to Beall’s List and the DOAJ lists of questionable journals after the SR was already published, which is another limitation of our study. Lastly, future research is needed to investigate the effects of including SPJ publications in scientific research.
Directory of Open Access Journals
suspected predatory journal
systematic review
MV reports research grants from the NIH, the Office of Research Integrity, and the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology (OCAST) unrelated to this work.