7 research outputs found

    Characterizing predatory publishing: A review

    Get PDF
    Objective(s): Predatory journals are a poorly understood threat to science. The objective of this study was to characterize the phenomenon of predatory publishing, by reviewing primary and secondary research and gray literature on the subject. Materials and methods: A scoping review was conducted, using a search syntax to identify relevant literature published between 2010 and 2020 in four electronic databases: PubMed, CAB Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. Initial screening was performed by reviewing the titles and abstracts. Selected articles were downloaded in full when available, reviewed, and information extracted by three reviewers, using a structured template. Qualitative data was summarized in four main themes: definition of predatory publishing, profile of targeted authors, impact of predatory publishing, and available solutions. Results: In total 113 full articles were included in the review. Predatory publishing affects authors from all countries, although researchers from low- and middle-income countries are most likely to be targeted. Reasons to publish include a lack of awareness of the phenomenon, coupled with the pressure to publish and the easy process that predatory journals offer, very appealing particularly to early career scientists. Predatory publishing has impacts in three main areas: reducing researchers’ credibility, lowering the quality of scientific evidence globally, and affecting the service provided by legitimate journals. Raising awareness of the issue and early identification of predatory journals are important solutions, but must be coupled with technical answers, such as the use of virtual platforms that facilitate practice of due diligence by authors and institutions before manuscript submission. It also requires a joint effort by scientists, editors, and publishers to develop guidance on good practices for the scientific community. Conclusion: The findings from this synthesis give insights that will be helpful to the scientific community in their efforts to fight predatory publishing

    Antimicrobial use in a peri-urban smallholder poultry system, Kenya

    Get PDF
    Objective(s): Analyze distribution and current usage of veterinary drugs in peri-urban smallholder poultry systems, Kenya Materials and methods: Machakos and Kajiado counties were purposively selected for the study. A baseline survey involving poultry farmers was conducted. Additional data were collected through key informant interviews (KII). The questionnaire data were electronically captured using open data kit, downloaded as a MS Excel® file, and cleaned. The data were analyzed using both descriptive and thematic approaches. Results: A total of 100 farmers were interviewed. Majority (58%) were >50 years old and kept chicken (100%), ducks (17%) and turkeys (16%). Methods for drug package disposal included burning (65%), burying (10%), and in pit latrines (9%). Sharing of same drugs across livestock species was reported (11 of the 66 farmers who kept other livestock). A small percentage (9%) mentioned using drugs intended for humans in animal treatment. Antibiotics constituted 47% of the total drug records used by farmers (n=347); 24% were used within the previous one month (24%) and had been administered by farmers themselves (90%). Challenges associated with the distribution, access and disposal of veterinary products were highlighted by KII respondents. Conclusion: on-prudent use of antimicrobials is a driver for development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) which has serious public health implications. This project is developing an ICT framework to improve AMU monitoring and address the current information gap on AMR

    Antimicrobial Use by Peri-Urban Poultry Smallholders of Kajiado and Machakos Counties in Kenya

    Get PDF
    Antimicrobial use (AMU) is a major driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). An understanding of current practices can lead to better targeting of AMU-reducing interventions. An analysis of the distribution and current usage of veterinary drugs in peri-urban smallholder poultry systems in Kenya was undertaken. A survey among poultry farmers and key informant interviews with agrovet operators and other players in the value chain was conducted in Machakos and Kajiado counties. Interview data were analyzed using descriptive and thematic approaches. A total of 100 farmers were interviewed. The majority (58%) were > 50 years old, and all kept chickens, while 66% kept other livestock. Antibiotics constituted 43% of the drugs reportedly used on the farms (n = 706). These were mostly administered by the farmers themselves (86%) through water (98%). Leftover drugs were stored for later use (89%) or disposed of (11%). Incineration was the main method for the disposal of leftover drugs and empty containers. As described by the key informants (n = 17), the drug distribution chain relied on agrovet shops that were supplied by local distributors and pharmaceutical companies, which, in turn, supplied drugs to the farmers. Farmers reportedly purchased drugs without prescriptions and rarely observed the withdrawal periods. Drug quality was a concern, especially for products requiring reconstitution

    Antimicrobial use by peri-urban poultry smallholders of Kajiado and Machakos counties in Kenya

    No full text
    Antimicrobial use (AMU) is a major driver of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). An understanding of current practices can lead to better targeting of AMU-reducing interventions. An analysis of the distribution and current usage of veterinary drugs in peri-urban smallholder poultry systems in Kenya was undertaken. A survey among poultry farmers and key informant interviews with agrovet operators and other players in the value chain was conducted in Machakos and Kajiado counties. Interview data were analyzed using descriptive and thematic approaches. A total of 100 farmers were interviewed. The majority (58%) were > 50 years old, and all kept chickens, while 66% kept other livestock. Antibiotics constituted 43% of the drugs reportedly used on the farms (n = 706). These were mostly administered by the farmers themselves (86%) through water (98%). Leftover drugs were stored for later use (89%) or disposed of (11%). Incineration was the main method for the disposal of leftover drugs and empty containers. As described by the key informants (n = 17), the drug distribution chain relied on agrovet shops that were supplied by local distributors and pharmaceutical companies, which, in turn, supplied drugs to the farmers. Farmers reportedly purchased drugs without prescriptions and rarely observed the withdrawal periods. Drug quality was a concern, especially for products requiring reconstitution
    corecore