Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F21%3A00123768" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/21:00123768 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2021/08000/Should_I_include_studies_from__predatory__journals.5.aspx" target="_blank" >https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2021/08000/Should_I_include_studies_from__predatory__journals.5.aspx</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00138" target="_blank" >10.11124/JBIES-21-00138</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Should I include studies from "predatory" journals in a systematic review? Interim guidance for systematic reviewers
Original language description
A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued. In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed. In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30304 - Public and environmental health
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2021
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
JBI Evidence Synthesis
ISSN
2689-8381
e-ISSN
2689-8381
Volume of the periodical
19
Issue of the periodical within the volume
8
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
9
Pages from-to
1915-1923
UT code for WoS article
000696252700005
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85112353534