Research on Predatory Publishing in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: Predatory publishers and their associated journals have been identified as a threat to the integrity of the scientific literature. Research on the phenomenon of predatory publishing in health care remains unquantified.

Purpose: To identify the characteristics of empirical studies on predatory publishing in the health care literature.

Methods: A scoping review was done using PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. A total of 4967 articles were initially screened; 77 articles reporting empirical findings were ultimately reviewed.

Results: The 77 articles were predominantly bibliometric analyses/document analyses (n = 56). The majority were in medicine (n = 31, 40%) or were multidisciplinary (n = 26, 34%); 11 studies were in nursing. Most studies reported that articles published in predatory journals were of lower quality than those published in more reputable journals. In nursing, the research confirmed that articles in predatory journals were being cited in legitimate nursing journals, thereby spreading information that may not be credible through the literature.

Conclusion: The purposes of the evaluated studies were similar: to understand the characteristics and extent of the problem of predatory publishing. Although literature about predatory publishing is abundant, empirical studies in health care are limited. The findings suggest that individual vigilance alone will not be enough to address this problem in the scholarly literature. Institutional policy and technical protections are also necessary to mitigate erosion of the scientific literature in health care.

Keywords: Joanna Briggs criteria; PRISMA; qualitative; quantitative; scholarly literature; scoping review; unethical publishing practices.