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

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

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2020-06, Vol.101 (6), p.969-977
Hauptverfasser: Bianchini, Claudio, Cosentino, Carola, Paci, Matteo, Baccini, Marco
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in predatory and nonpredatory journals in the field of physical therapy. 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. The PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) scale and duration of the peer review. 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
ISSN:0003-9993
1532-821X
DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.12.012