Quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals.

BACKGROUND Predatory journals exist in nursing and lack the safeguards of traditional publishing practices. PURPOSE To examine the quality of articles published in predatory nursing journals. METHOD Randomly selected articles (n = 358) were reviewed for structural content and eight quality indicators. FINDINGS Two-thirds (67.4%) of the articles were published between 2014 and 2016, demonstrating the acceleration of publications in predatory nursing journals. The majority (75.9%) of the articles were research reports. Most followed the IMRAD presentation of a research report but contained errors, or the study was not pertinent to the nursing discipline. CONCLUSIONS Nursing research published in predatory journals may appear legitimate by conforming to an expected structure. However, a lack of quality is apparent, representing inadequate peer review and editorial processes. Poor quality research erodes the scholarly nursing literature.

[1]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[2]  L. Nicoll,et al.  Caught in the Trap: The Allure of Deceptive Publishers , 2015, Nurse Author & Editor.

[3]  Jelte M. Wicherts,et al.  Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  Kathleen Fitzpatrick,et al.  Giving It Away: Sharing and the Future of Scholarly Communication , 2012 .

[5]  J. Bohannon.  Who's afraid of peer review? , 2013, Science.

[6]  Marilyn H Oermann,et al.  Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals. , 2016, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[7]  Carol Tenopir,et al.  How scholars implement trust in their reading, citing and publishing activities: Geographical differences , 2014 .

[8]  Albert N. Greco.  The Impact of Disruptive and Sustaining Digital Technologies on Scholarly Journals , 2016 .

[9]  David Moher,et al.  You are invited to submit… , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[10]  Sneha Kulkarni,et al.  Beall's list of "predatory" publishers and journals no longer available , 2017 .

[11]  B. Björk,et al.  ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[12]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Writing in the digital age , 2016, Trends in Neuroscience and Education.

[13]  Margaret A. Ray.  An Expanded Approach to Evaluating Open Access Journals , 2016 .

[14]  R. Price,et al.  Artemether-lumefantrine treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and therapeutic response using individual patient data , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[15]  INANE “Predatory Publishing Practic Collaborative.  Predatory publishing: What editors need to know. , 2015, CANNT journal = Journal ACITN.

[16]  Eva Navas,et al.  Accepted Manuscript , 2022 .