Predatory Publishing in Paramedicine: A Longitudinal Analysis

Evidence-based paramedicine relies on access to credible research, yet predatory journals may introduce unreliable evidence into the literature. This study quantified paramedicine-related publications in predatory journals from 2000–2025. PubMed records were identified and journal ISSNs cross-matched with Cabells’ Predatory Reports. Among approximately 210,000 paramedicine-related articles published across 6,767 journals, 20 journals (0.30%) were classified as predatory, containing 126 articles (0.06%). Predatory publishing therefore represents a very small proportion of paramedicine literature. Nevertheless, even limited inclusion of questionable studies may affect evidence appraisal and synthesis, supporting continued publication literacy, vigilance, and reproducible approaches to identifying predatory journals.