How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F23%3A00130327" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/23:00130327 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1613" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1613</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1613" target="_blank" >10.1002/jrsm.1613</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts
Original language description
Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences.Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%).While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.
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
30230 - Other clinical medicine subjects
Result continuities
Project
<a href="/en/project/LTC20031" target="_blank" >LTC20031: Towards an International Network for Evidence-based Research in Clinical Health Research in the Czech Republic</a><br>
Continuities
P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)
Others
Publication year
2023
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
ISSN
1759-2879
e-ISSN
1759-2887
Volume of the periodical
14
Issue of the periodical within the volume
3
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
12
Pages from-to
370-381
UT code for WoS article
000907883100001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85145709809