ABSTRACT Predatory journals are characterized by their emphasis on selfinterest over academic integrity. Research on these journals predominantly aims at their identification to mitigate their influence. Yet, the exploration of how articles from predatory journals affect systematic reviews remains limited. The primary objective of this study is to understand the extent of our current knowledge on how predatory publishing impacts evidence syntheses. The secondary objective is to collect and implement a set of strategies to minimize the inclusion of predatory journals. A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on April 7th, 2024, in line with PRISMA methodology. Only studies exploring how predatory publishing affects systematic reviews were included. A total of 7 articles were included. One found that 157 systematic reviews cited at least one article from predatory journals. Another discovered that nine percent of trials in a large Cochrane review were from presumed predatory publications. A third study found that, out of 6,750 citations in 300 reviews, 55 were presumably from predatory journals. Different strategies were discussed, such as tools to assess quality and common indicators of predatory articles, information on indexing and its significance, and a team based approach with experts in the field to establish correct research protocols. Our scoping review highlights the significant issue of predatory journals being included in systematic reviews and calls for more bibliometric quantitative analysis. It also discusses strategies to prevent the inclusion of low quality research in evidence syntheses, particularly useful for early career researchers. Highlights What is already known: Predatory journals are characterized by their emphasis on selfinterest over academic integrity. Research on these journals predominantly aims at their identification to mitigate their influence. What is new: This study comprehensively reviews how predatory publishing impacts evidence syntheses and suggests strategies to minimize their inclusion. Potential impact for readers: The findings emphasize the need for more bibliometric analysis to further delineate this problem and provide actionable strategies for early career researchers to safeguard the quality of evidence syntheses.

The rise of predatory journals threatens the integrity of academic publishing by exploiting open-access models and bypassing rigorous peer review. The lack of standardized criteria complicates their identification. This study systematically reviews existing predatory journal lists, assessing their effectiveness in enhancing transparency and safeguarding scholarly publishing. This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, including lists identifying predatory journals from peer-reviewed sources or reputable organizations. Using relevant keywords, a comprehensive search was conducted across academic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, DOAJ), grey literature, and publisher websites. Key variables extracted included governance, accessibility, update mechanisms, and identification criteria. A comparative analysis assessed transparency, evaluation processes, and gaps such as historical tracking and evolving criteria. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, median, and range, were calculated using SPSS Version 26.0. Ten lists identifying predatory journals were analyzed; six (60.0%) were established after 2017, and nine (90.0%) were publicly accessible. The majority (seven, 70.0%) covered journals and publishers, with nine (90.0%) relying on a manual review process for identification. Delisting criteria were unclear in eight (80.0%) of the lists. Most lists (six, 60.0%) were available in database format . In terms of updating frequency, one list (10.0%) was updated daily, and six lists (60.0%) did not specify their update frequency. While these lists help identify fraudulent publishing practices, criteria, updates, and delisting inconsistencies reduce their reliability. Standardized methodologies, transparency, and sustained efforts are needed to keep them relevant, ensuring they safeguard academic integrity and guide researchers toward credible publishing.

Predatory journals, with low standards of publication, means flawed or fraudulent research can compromise future research. Often called ‘predatory’ or ‘deceptive’ publishers, both these terms have an implication that the editors and publishers behind them have a motivation to deceive or con authors. However, the motivations remain an assumption because little is known about the individuals behind these journals. This research intended to use qualitative, in-depth interviews to find out more about the individuals behind predatory journals. By engaging with them directly, we hoped to gain an understanding of how they see themselves in the publishing landscape, what value they add and how they achieve these aims. Emails received by the authors were mined for contact information of suspected predatory journals. Over the course of a year, 2552 emails were sent inviting respondents to an interview, for which there would be a small monetary compensation. Despite sending 2552 emails, only three responses were received, and all three did not schedule an interview when prompted. Two of the three requested that a translator be present. A significant percentage of the emails (36.2 per cent) bounced back, indicating the contact information was not valid. While the information gained was limited, it would appear many are aware of the dubious nature of their journal and do not wish further scrutiny by being contacted. Others may lack the English-language skills necessary to be engaged in basic written communication, let alone the more complex language and grammar of scientific publishing.

in supporting the hypothesis made by the Hanken authors. Managed care professionals produce research and use research to make evidence-based decisions. With the growth of predatory journals, it can be difficult for authors and readers to distinguish these publications from trusted, reputable journals. To help make this distinction, several lists have been published that help users to identify predatory journals. 3 , 7 - 10 These resources can be extremely useful when evaluating a particular journal; however, they provide readers with little detail about the publishing practices of reputable journals. In this article, I explain 5 publishing practices that distinguish credible journals from predatory journals, using JMCP as an illustrative example ( Table 1 ). In this way, I not only highlight good publishing practices, but I share with readers the inner workings of JMCP . TABLE 1. Five Practices of Reputable Journals Practice Description 1. Reputable journals have a peer-review process. Thorough review and critique of article provided by experts in the field Used to determine whether or not journal will publish article 2. Reputable journals have an editorial board. Board of experts in relevant field that serve in advisory capacity Subject matter expertise and geography of board members should match scope of journal 3. Reputable journals follow recognized publishing standards. Recognized standards for publishing practices used by journals to guide operations Examples include ICJME and COPE 4. Reputable journals are transparent about levied fees. Processing or publication fee is to generate revenue to cover journal expenses Transparency reduces real or perceived influence of fees on publication decisions 5. Reputable journals are indexed. Databases of journals meeting quality selection criteria to be indexed Examples include MEDLINE and Web of Science Open in a new tab COPE = Core Practices by the Committee on Publication Ethics; ICJME = Recommendations for the Conduc