Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: The scientific community depends on high-quality peer-reviewed research, which is being polluted with pseudoscience published in fake journals that have exploited the open-access model. This "predatory publishing" has made its way into the field of dermatology. In a recent study, we identified and listed these journals. METHODS: The "predatory rate" was calculated for 76 journals in order to rank the journals based on specific criteria associated with unethical publishing. RESULTS: Of the 76 journals, 89.5% were classified as predatory journals and the remaining as journals involved in predatory practices. CONCLUSION: The field of dermatology is not immune to predatory publishers. This study validates Beall's list as well as other previous studies. Strategies to a solution include spreading awareness throughout academic institutions and dermatology departments as well as avoiding publishers that are involved in predatory practices. However, some journals may be able to make necessary adjustments and become legitimate contributors to the field.
Tosti et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: