Quality of the peer-review-concept or predatory journals in otorhinolaryngology

Introduction Pseudo-scientific journals (so-called "Predatory Journals") have been undermining the market of scientific publications for several years by accepting manuscripts without significant quality control against payment of a fee and publishing them according to the Open Access (OA) model. The aim of our study was to find out whether so-called "predatory journals" exist in the field of otorhinolaryngology and how these can be distinguished from renowned journals.

Methods A manuscript on a fictitious experimental otological examination was prepared. While sentence structure and wording had a scientific style, the manuscript contained massive scientific errors, so that the manuscript could easily be exposed as a "fake" or at least publication-unworthy. The manuscript was submitted to 17 international medical journals with an otological focus, both traditional otological journals without an OA model (n = 9) and pure OA journals (n = 8).

Results The results of the peer review process were: accept (n = 4), minor revisions (n ​​= 2), major revisions (n ​​= 1) reject (n = 10). All 9 traditional otological journals rejected the manuscript and in part denounced the gross scientific transgressions. Only one OA journal rejected the manuscript.

Conclusion "Predatory journals" exist in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Every researcher and every reader of scientific articles should know how to detect pseudo-scientific work where no real peer-review process was performed.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. Mai 2022