The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017).”
From GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation (2024) · cites this paper as Dadkhah et al., 2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bohannon, J. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60 · Cited by 934
Medical Publishing Triage - Chronicling Predatory Open Access Publishers
Beall, J. (2013) · Annals of Medicine & Surgery · doi:10.1016/s2049-0801(13)70035-9 · Cited by 125
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- Beall J (2016) Dangerous predatory publishers threaten medical research. J Korean Med Sci 31(10):1511–1513. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.10.1511 · DOI
- Bhad R, Hazari N (2015) Predatory journals in psychiatry: a note of caution. Asian J Psychiatr 16:67–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2015.06.008 · DOI
- Bohannon J (2015a) Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers. Science 348(6230):18–19. doi: 10.1126/science.348.6230.18 · DOI
- Bohannon J (2015b) How to hijack a journal. Science 350(6263):903–905. doi: 10.1126/science.350.6263.903 · DOI
- Dadkhah M, Borchardt G (2016) Hijacked journals: an emerging challenge for scholarly publishing. Aesthet Surg J 36(6):739–741. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjw026 · DOI
- De Moya-Anegón F, Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z, Vargas-Quesada B, Corera-Álvarez E, Muñoz-Fernández F, González-Molina A, Herrero-Solana V (2007) Coverage analysis of Scopus: a journal metric approach. Scientometrics 73(1):53–78. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1681-4 · DOI
- Dyrud AM (2014). Predatory online technical journals: A question of ethics. In 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN, U.S.A, June 15–18, 2014 · DOI
- Hansoti B, Langdorf MI, Murphy LS (2016) Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open Access Journals: report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee. West J Emerg Med 17(5):497. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328 · DOI
- Harzing AWK, Van der Wal R (2008) Google scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics 8(1):61–73 · DOI
- Jalalian M, Dadkhah M (2015) The full story of 90 hijacked journals from august 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica 19(2):73–87 · DOI · Paper page
- Jalalian M, Mahboobi H (2014) Hijacked journals and predatory publishers: is there a need to re-think how to assess the quality of academic research? Walailak J Sci & Tech 11(5):389–394. doi: 10.14456/WJST.2014.16 · DOI
- Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW (2009) Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 302(10):1092–1096. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · DOI
- Lopez-Cozar ED, Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D (2012) Manipulating Google Scholar citations and Google Scholar metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.0638 · arXiv
- Nahai F (2015) The rise of predatory journals: what difference does it make? Aesthet Surg J 35(8):1042–1043. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjv085 · DOI
- Osipov G, Smirnov I, Tikhomirov I, Sochenkov I, Shelmanov A, Shvets A (2014) Information retrieval for R&D support. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8830:45–69. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12511-4_4 · DOI
- Tin L, Ivana B, Biljana B, Ljubica IB, Dragan M, Dušan S (2014) Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers–a global outbreak with rising trend: a review. Geographica Pannonica 18(3):69–81 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-156 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-02-18
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-185
- ISSN
- 1873-9601
- 1873-961X
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
