Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2020 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 5

Analysis of potential predatory journals in radiology

Sayfa
498–503
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75–87.5 days; range, 1–237 days) for the journals which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly.CONCLUSIONWe demonstrated the several main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published article and peer-review time which were all found to be similar to the characteristics of potential predatory journals in other biomedical fields.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSEThe aim of this study is to determine the presence and evaluate the features of potential predatory journals in the radiology field.METHODSThe presence of the keywords related to radiology listed in the name of journals was investigated in Beall’s list.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:We have searched and recorded the features and the information of the included journals listed under the following headings: address and location, publishing features, editorial board, indexing features, submission, and peer-review processes.RESULTSA total of 66 radiology journals from 27 publishers were identified from the updated version of the original Beall's list.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75–87.5 days; range, 1–237 days) for the journals which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly.CONCLUSIONWe demonstrated the several main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published article and peer-review time which were all found to be similar to the characteristics of potential predatory journals in other biomedical fields.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

PURPOSEThe aim of this study is to determine the presence and evaluate the features of potential predatory journals in the radiology field.METHODSThe presence of the keywords related to radiology listed in the name of journals was investigated in Beall’s list. We have searched and recorded the features and the information of the included journals listed under the following headings: address and location, publishing features, editorial board, indexing features, submission, and peer-review processes.RESULTSA total of 66 radiology journals from 27 publishers were identified from the updated version of the original Beall's list. Regarding the publishers, 33 journals (50%) reported an address in the United States of America, while others were from United Kingdom, India, Hong Kong, Iran, and Canada. While 44 journals' (67%) website reported a contact address, no addresses were declared in the website of 21 journals (32%). The median time of publication activity was 3.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 1–5 years; range, 0–16 years). Thirty-five journals (53%) indicated their publication ethics policy on the website. Forty-seven (71%) journals reported a regular editorial board (EB) list. The competency of the EB was considered as "inappropriate" in 27 (41%) journals. Only 18% of the total number of EB members had affiliations related to radiology (n=286/1566). Forty journals (61%) did not report any indexing and database coverage. We found 26 journals (39%) which had a DOI number in its latest 5 articles. Fifty-nine (89%) journals clearly reported article processing change (APC) on the webpage. The median APC value was 641.43 USD (IQR, 300–918.75 USD; range, 100–2588 USD). Considering the latest 5 articles, the number of journals with radiologic images in all of the articles was 8 (12%). Mean peer-review time was 63.5 days (IQR, 21.75–87.5 days; range, 1–237 days) for the journals which indicated the submission and acceptance dates clearly.CONCLUSIONWe demonstrated the several main characteristics of potential predatory journals in the radiology field such as reliability of the reported address, APC, publication frequencies, indexing features, features of published article and peer-review time which were all found to be similar to the characteristics of potential predatory journals in other biomedical fields.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ARIBAL, S., İNCE, O., KAYA, E., ÖNDER, H. (2020). Analysis of potential predatory journals in radiology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 5, 498–503. https://ajindex.com/articles/349963

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 2012; 489:179. [Crossref] 2. Cress PE. Are predatory conferences the dark side of the open access movement? Aesthet Surg J; 37:734–738. [Crossref] 3. Shen C, Bjork BC. “Predatory” open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 2015; 13:230. [Crossref] 4. Beall J. Beall's list of predatory journals and publishers. Accessed on October 2019. Available from: http://beallslist.weebly. com. 5. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:791–793. [Crossref] 6. Devnani M, Gupta AK. Predatory journals are only part of the problem. BMJ 2015; 350:h707. [Crossref] 7. AlAhmad YM, Abdelhafez I, Cyprian FS, Akhtar S, Skenderi F, Vranic S. Critical appraisal of predatory journals in pathology. J Clin Pathol 2020; 73:58–60. [Crossref] 8. Omer J, Mohammed SH, Salih RQ, et al. Predatory journals in psychiatry. Lancet Psychiatry 2019; 6:564–565. [Crossref] 9. Yan JR, Baldawi H, Lex JR, et al. Predatory Publishing in Orthopaedic Research. J Bone Joint Surg 2018; 100:e138. [Crossref] 10. Cortegiani A, Sanfilippo F, Tramarin J, Giarratano A. Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine. J Crit Care 2019; 50:247–249. [Crossref] 11. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:178–182. [Crossref] 12. Manca A, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion. Lancet 2017; 390:734–573. [Crossref] 13. Jalalian M. The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electron Physician 2015; 7:1069–1072. 14. Gorraiz J, Melero-Fuentes D, Gumpenberger C, Valderrama-Zurián J-C. Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. J Infometrics 2016; 10: 98–109. [Crossref] 15. Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F. Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98:1051–1056. [Crossref] 16. Akça S, Akbulut M. Türkiye’deki yağmacı dergiler: Beall listesi üzerine bir araştırma. Bilgi Dünyası 2018; 19:255e274. 17. Erdağ TK. Boring emails: "You are invited to submit a manuscript for …". Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 56:185–187. [Crossref] 18. Christopher MM, Young KM. Awareness of “predatory” open-access journals among prospective veterinary and medical authors attending scientific writing workshops. Front Vet Sci 2015; 2:22. [Crossref]