98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: This study seeks to assess the impact of a Delphi-validated educational video on improving comprehension of predatory journals among medical students and residents.
Methodology: Participants completed pre-video (11 questions) and post-video (19 questions) questionnaires on the same day after viewing our Delphi-validated video, with a subsequent follow-up assessment 30 days later (19 questions). Each of the three assessments included a core set of questions focused on predatory journals. Additionally, both post-video assessments incorporated the EDUCATOOL questionnaire.
Results: A total of 64 participants completed the survey (from a total of 83), including 51 medical students (79.6%) and 13 residents (20.3%). Analyses using Wilcoxon tests indicated that self-perceived knowledge increased from pre- to post-video (4 vs 8, < 0.0001) and remained stable at 30 days (8 vs 7, = 0.38). A similar trend was seen in assessment scores, with the Total Score increasing (7 vs 14.5, < 0.0001) and sustaining at 30 days (14.5 vs 13, = 0.92). The video received consistently high ratings across both EDUCATOOL questionnaires, with participants finding it highly relevant, engaging, and satisfactory.
Conclusion: Our Delphi-validated video enhances understanding of predatory journals and could complement U.S. NIH training guidelines.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2522261 | DOI Listing |
Altern Ther Health Med
August 2025
Department of Epidemiology, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Background: Research quality in Ayush systems of medicine is vital for evidence synthesis and decision-making. As Ayush gains global recognition, analyzing its trends and challenges is important for improving clinical outcomes. However, a comprehensive analysis of research publications is lacking.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur J Intern Med
August 2025
Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Faculty of Economics and Business, John von Neumann University, Kecskemét, Hungary; Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Economy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Gödöllő, Hungary
The rise of questionable journals poses a significant threat to academic integrity, resulting in substantial waste of institutional and university resources. This commentary analysis focuses on six hijacked medical journals, a specific type of questionable publication. We utilized Semrush, an online Search Engine Optimization auditing platform, to analyse our data, which revealed that hijacked journals disseminate their content through search engines.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNaunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol
August 2025
Independent Researcher, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-Ken, 761-0799, Japan.
Traditional peer review (TPR), despite being touted as the bedrock by which scientific knowledge is screened, vetted, and validated, is riddled with biases, limitations, and abuses, reducing not only trust in this publishing model, but overall in the scientific record that claims to be peer-reviewed. Two models that were proposed to fortify the TPR model, open peer review (OPR) and preprints, have themselves shown biases, limitations, and risks of abuse. OPR journals that claim to be peer reviewed should only be rewarded-in terms of indexing and metrics-when they can prove that they have conducted peer review-i.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Nepal Health Res Counc
June 2025
National Academy of Medical Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal.
N/A.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMed Klin Intensivmed Notfmed
August 2025
Pflegewissenschaft und -entwicklung, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Deutschland.
Questionable publication practices and predatory journals pose an increasing challenge to scientific integrity. These publication models advertise rapid publication times but lack essential quality controls such as peer-review processes, transparency, and charge high fees, which facilitates the dissemination of unreliable research findings. There is an increased risk, particularly for less experienced researchers, of unknowingly publishing in such journals or using their content uncritically.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF