Advertisement

Open Access Physical Therapy Journals: Do Predatory Journals Publish Lower-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials?

Published:January 27, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.012

      Highlights

      • Predatory physical therapy journals publish randomized controlled trials of lower quality and have shorter times for peer review process than journals not included in Beall's list.
      • Due to the great number of papers published by predatory physical therapy journals, there is a clear risk that predatory publishers substantially contribute to the dissemination of unsound research findings.

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To compare the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in predatory and nonpredatory journals in the field of physical therapy.

      Data Sources

      From a list of 18 journals included either on Beall’s list (n=9) or in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (n=9), 2 independent assessors extracted all the RCTs published between 2014 and 2017. When journals published more than 40 RCTs, a sample of 40 trials was randomly extracted, preserving the proportions among years. Indexing in PubMed, country of journal publication, and dates of submission or acceptance were also recorded for each journal.

      Main Outcome Measures

      The PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale and duration of the peer review.

      Results

      Four hundred ten RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score of articles published in non-Beall, DOAJ journals was higher than those published in Beall journals (mean score ± SD, 5.8±1.7 vs 4.5±1.5; P<.001), with the differences increasing when the indexing in PubMed was also considered (6.5±1.5 vs 4.4±1.5; P<.001). The peer review duration was significantly longer in non-Beall than in Beall journals (mean duration [d] ± SD, 145.2±92.9 vs 45.4±38.8; P<.001) and in journals indexed in PubMed than in nonindexed journals (136.6±100.7 vs 60.4±55.7; P<.001). Indexing in PubMed was the strongest independent variable associated with the PEDro score (adjusted R2=0.182), but noninclusion on Beall’s list explained an additional, albeit small, portion of the PEDro score variance (cumulative adjusted R2=0.214).

      Conclusions

      Potentially predatory journals publish lower-quality trials and have a shorter peer review process than non-Beall journals included in the DOAJ database.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), NPJ (nonpredatory journal), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), PJ (predatory journal), RCT (randomized controlled trial)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Eriksson S.
        • Helgesson G.
        Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’.
        Learn Publ. 2018; 31: 181-183
        • Beall J.
        Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers.
        2nd ed. Scholarly Open Access, Denver2012
        • Shamseer L.
        • Moher D.
        • Maduekwe O.
        • et al.
        Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison.
        BMC Med. 2017; 15: 28
        • Edie A.H.
        • Conklin J.L.
        Avoiding predatory journals: quick peer review processes too good to be true.
        Nurs Forum. 2019; 54: 336-339
        • Oermann M.H.
        • Conklin J.L.
        • Nicoll L.H.
        • et al.
        Study of predatory open access nursing journals.
        J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016; 48: 624-632
        • Yan J.R.
        • Baldawi H.
        • Lex J.R.
        • et al.
        Predatory publishing in orthopedic research.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100: e138
        • Olivo S.A.
        • Macedo L.G.
        • Gadotti I.C.
        • Fuentes J.
        • Stanton T.
        • Magee D.J.
        Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.
        Phys Ther. 2008; 88: 156-175
        • Xia J.
        • Harmon J.
        • Connolly K.
        • Donnelly R.
        • Anderson M.
        • Howard H.
        Who publishes in predatory journals?.
        J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015; 66: 1406-1417
        • Moher D.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Cobey K.D.
        • et al.
        Stop this waste of people, animals and money.
        Nature. 2017; 549: 23-25
        • 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
        • Elkins M.R.
        • Moseley A.M.
        • Sherrington C.
        • Herbert R.D.
        • Maher C.G.
        Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale.
        Br J Sports Med. 2013; 47: 188-189
        • Maher G.
        • Sherrington C.
        • Herbert R.
        • Moseley A.M.
        • Elkins M.
        Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.
        Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 713-721
        • Oermann M.H.
        • Nicoll L.H.
        • Chinn P.L.
        • et al.
        Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals.
        Nurs Outlook. 2018; 66: 4-10
        • Beall J.
        Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers.
        Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2013; 2: 47-49
        • Beall J.
        Predatory journals threaten the quality of published medical research.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017; 47: 3-5
        • Cook C.
        Predatory journals: the worst thing in publishing, ever.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017; 47: 1-2
        • Ross-White A.
        • Godfrey C.M.
        • Sears K.A.
        • Wilson R.
        Predatory publications in evidence syntheses.
        J Med Libr Assoc. 2019; 107: 57-61
        • Wager E.
        Why we should worry less about predatory publishers and more about the quality of research and training at our academic institutions.
        J Epidemiol. 2017; 27: 87-88
        • Butler D.
        Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing.
        Nature. 2013; 495: 433-435
        • Manca A.
        • Martinez G.
        • Cugusi L.
        • Dragone D.
        • Dvir Z.
        • Deriu F.
        The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology.
        Neuroscience. 2017; 353: 166-173
        • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
        Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing lists.
        AME Med J. 2017; 2: 97

      Linked Article

      • Correction
        Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationVol. 102Issue 2
        • Preview
          In the article by Bianchini et al, Open Access Physical Therapy Journals: Do Predatory Journals Publish Lower-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials?, published in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2020;101:969-977 https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(20)30024-1/fulltext , a co-author’s name was misspelled in the byline. It should be: Carola Cosentino.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF