Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of presumed predatory publications in Cochrane reviews, which are considered the gold standard.
METHODS: We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from \"reputable\" to \"presumed predatory\" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.
RESULTS: We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.
CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.
METHODS: We selected two Cochrane networks with broad scope: the Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network and the Public Health and Health Systems Network. From reviews produced by all review groups in those networks in 2018 and 2019, we extracted included study citations published after 2000. For each citation, we assessed the journal and publisher using an algorithmic process based on characteristics known to be common among predatory publishers. Knowing that predatory status can be fluid and subjective, we scored citations on a spectrum from \"reputable\" to \"presumed predatory\" based on publication characteristics available at the time of assessment.
RESULTS: We assessed 6,750 citations from 300 reviews. Of these citations, 5,734 were published by entities widely accepted as reputable, leaving 1,591 for further assessment. We flagged 55 citations as concerning.
CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews across diverse topic areas included studies from flagged publishers, although this number is small. Because of this, there is potential for studies from predatory journals to influence the conclusions of systematic reviews. Researchers should stay aware of this potential threat to the quality of reviews.
摘要：
目的：为了检查Cochrane评论中假定的掠夺性出版物的普遍性，这被认为是黄金标准。
方法：我们选择了两个范围广泛的Cochrane网络：肌肉骨骼，Oral,皮肤和感官网络以及公共卫生和卫生系统网络。从这些网络中的所有评论小组在2018年和2019年发表的评论中，我们提取了2000年后发表的研究引文。对于每个引用，我们使用基于已知在掠夺性出版商中常见的特征的算法过程对期刊和出版商进行了评估.知道掠夺性地位可能是流动和主观的，我们根据评估时可获得的出版物特征,对从"声誉"到"假定掠夺性"的引文进行了评分.
结果：我们评估了300条评论中的6,750条引用。在这些引用中，5,734由被广泛接受为信誉良好的实体发布，留下1,591作进一步评估。我们标记了55篇引文。
结论：Cochrane在不同主题领域的评论包括来自被标记的出版商的研究，虽然这个数字很小。正因为如此,掠夺性期刊的研究有可能影响系统评价的结论。研究人员应该意识到这种对评论质量的潜在威胁。
方法：我们选择了两个范围广泛的Cochrane网络：肌肉骨骼，Oral,皮肤和感官网络以及公共卫生和卫生系统网络。从这些网络中的所有评论小组在2018年和2019年发表的评论中，我们提取了2000年后发表的研究引文。对于每个引用，我们使用基于已知在掠夺性出版商中常见的特征的算法过程对期刊和出版商进行了评估.知道掠夺性地位可能是流动和主观的，我们根据评估时可获得的出版物特征,对从"声誉"到"假定掠夺性"的引文进行了评分.
结果：我们评估了300条评论中的6,750条引用。在这些引用中，5,734由被广泛接受为信誉良好的实体发布，留下1,591作进一步评估。我们标记了55篇引文。
结论：Cochrane在不同主题领域的评论包括来自被标记的出版商的研究，虽然这个数字很小。正因为如此,掠夺性期刊的研究有可能影响系统评价的结论。研究人员应该意识到这种对评论质量的潜在威胁。
