Introduction: Pseudo journals, hijacked journals, fraudulent journals, fake journals, and predatory journals waste valuable research when authors publish their studies in them. Aim: This article described novel suggested features for the identification of fraudulent journals and aimed to explain this issue to help inexperienced scientists avoid publishing in predatory journals. Methods: The articles related to this topic in were retrieved from PubMed and trustable Internet sources. Results: Unfortunately, some fake journals have made their way into reputable databases, such as PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science; thus, the serious question has been raised regarding how we should address this problematic phenomenon. We recommended 28 suggested characteristics of predatory journals for readers to take into consideration. Conclusion: Unaware of the detrimental effects associated with publishing in disreputable journals, inexperienced researchers can fall victim to them. Together, as both readers and writers, we should completely boycott predatory journals.

Introduction: The source of scientific information, methods for their evaluation, and methodology of their use are critical for serious scientific research and publishing of the scientific research results. Certain methodological principles should be inexcusably followed when designing clinical or observational research to avoid bias and presentation of results that do not reflect the truth about the phenomenon that is the object of the study. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality of clinical trials and observational studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav countries indexed in Web of Science (WoS) and Pubmed/MEDLINE. Methods: Clinical studies published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries were retrieved from the WoS and Pubmed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. The rate of the most common errors in the design of clinical/observational studies was established by a careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria. Results: Number and percent of the evaluated studies that failed to meet each of the methodological criteria tested, number of the evaluated criteria not satisfied per database and number of studies that satisfied more than 4 criteria were analyzed per database. When explanatory potential of journal impact factor, number of citations, time elapsed from publication and a database where a journal is referred were tested by linear regression in regard to the number of methodological criteria satisfied per study, the linear regression model was obtained by backward deletion method and achieved R2 adjusted of 0.166 (F=13.827, df1 = 2, df2 = 127, p=0.000). The methodological quality of studies was directly related to impact factor of the journals (B = 0.976, 95% confidence interval 0.539 – 1.413, p=0.000) and inversely with the database where a journal is referred (B =–0.444, 95% confidence interval–0.824 – -0.064, p = 0.022). Each additional unit of impact factor increased number of satisfied methodological criteria for about 1, while referring a journal only in WoS decreased number of satisfied criteria for 0.45 points in comparison with journals referred in both WoS and Pubmed/MEDLINE, and for 0.9 points in comparison to journals referred only in MEDLINE. Conclusion: Methodological and scientometric quality of clinical studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav region varies significantly, and the variations are higher in journals referenced only in WoS than in journals referenced in Pubmed/MEDLINE only, or in both Pubmed and Web of Science databases.

Introduction: Certain methodological principles should be inexcusably followed when designing clinical or observational research to avoid bias and presentation of results that do not reflect the truth about the phenomenon that is the object of the study. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the methodological quality of clinical trials and observational studies published in medical journals from ex-Yugoslav countries indexed in Pubmed/MEDLINE. Methods: Clinical studies published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries were retrieved from the Pubmed/MEDLINE database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. The rate of the most common errors in the design of clinical/observational studies was established by a careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria. Results: The studies published in two countries that are now member states of the European Union (Slovenia and Croatia) have significantly higher citation rates, impact factor, and methodological quality scores than studies from other ex-Yugoslav countries. While publications from Croatia show clear improvement trend throughout the last two decades, which is visible also in the last 10 years in Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, quality of clinical research published in journals from Serbia was stagnating in the same period. Conclusions: There are significant differences in methodological quality and scientometric characteristics of clinical research published in medical journals of ex-Yugoslav countries that could be mitigated by more intensive training of clinical researchers in statistics and research design, as well as by more rigorous editorial practices.

Introduction: Results of preclinical and clinical studies in medicine could be trusted only if their design and statistical analysis were appropriate. Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate whether preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina satisfy basic requirements for appropriate design and statistical interpretation of data. Methods: Preclinical and clinical studies published in medical journals of Bosnia and Herzegovina were retrieved from the PubMed database, and the sample for analysis was randomly chosen from the retrieved publications. Implementation rate of basic principles of experimental design (local control, randomization and replication) and rate of the most common errors in design of clinical/observational studies was established by careful reading of the sampled publications and their checking against predefined criteria. Results: Our study showed that only a minority of experimental preclinical studies had basic principles of design completely implemented (7%), while implementation rate of single aspects of appropriate experimental design varied from as low as 12% to as high as 77%. Only one of the clinical/observational studies had none of the errors searched for (2%), and specific errors rates varied from 10% to 89%. Average impact factor of the surveyed studies was around one, and average publication date recent, less than 5 years ago. Conclusion: Prevalence of preclinical studies that did not follow completely basic principles of research design, and that of clinical/observational studies with errors are high, raising suspicion to validity of their results. If incorrect and not protected against bias, results of published studies may adversely influence future research.