RESEARCH ARTICLE

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) doi: 10.1002/leap.1216 Received: 19 September 2018 | Accepted: 25 November 2018

Journals removed from DOAJ appearing within SCImago’s

ranks: A study of excluded journals
Li Sun

University Libraries, Rutgers, The State University of Abstract

New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ USA Researchers applauded Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)’s new
selection criteria that removed many existing journals from its index
ORCID:
L. Sun: 0000-0001-7360-310X because they are ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’. However, many of these
journals have acceptable scholarly quality. The present study compares
E-mail: lisun@rutgers.edu
such removed journals to a trustworthy bibliometric database, SCImago
Journal & Country Rank (the Scopus Database). It finds many overlaps.
Some of the overlapping journals have a high score in the SCImago ranks.
This paper calls for a more transparent process of journal reviews by
DOAJ or even a re-examination of the selection criteria and/or the evalua-
tion process.

INTRODUCTION
The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) is considered to
be one of the most comprehensive indices of open access
(OA) peer reviewed journals of high quality (Crawford, 2014; Olij-
hoek, Mitchell, & Bjørnshauge, 2015). It is freely searchable, cur-
rently covering more than 10,000 journal titles. For a journal to
be indexed in DOAJ, an online application form must be submit-
ted, which is first reviewed by a volunteer editorial staff (https://
doaj.org) and subsequently by managing editors (Marchitelli,
Galimberti, Bollini, & Mitchell, 2017, p. 4).
Launched in 2003 at Lund University, Sweden, DOAJ has
been growing rapidly, roughly ‘at a rate of more than one title a
day’ (Morrison, 2008, p. 19). However, after several years, it was
criticized for retaining non-exclusive OA journals, some of which
were financially unsustainable or short of citations (Morris, 2006).
It was also criticized for including OA journals that are currently
inaccessible, with very few articles, or suspect in peer review
(e.g., Bohannon, 2013).
To enhance its quality control, DOAJ revised the inclusion
criteria and its process for evaluating potential entries in 2014
(Marchitelli et al., 2017). This change has resulted in a reduction
of thousands of journals that failed to resubmit their applications
as required by DOAJ as an enhancement step. Thousands of
other journals have also been removed because they are no
longer in operation, their websites are not available, they are not
adhering to best practice, or other reasons.
Marchitelli et al. (2017) evaluated the improvement of the
quality of journals indexed in DOAJ. They reviewed a total of
12,595 journals in DOAJ from 2003 to 2016 and focused their
study on a group of 3,776 journals deleted from the index. On
comparing these deleted journals to low-quality, unprofessionally
published journals listed in Beall’s blacklist (Beall, 2012),1 they
found 158 overlaps. The authors applauded DOAJ’s new selec-
tion criteria, which had resulted in a clear quality improvement of
its journal list. In another study, Shen and Björk (2015) also com-
pared these two lists and estimated a 7.8% overlap. It is generally
believed that DOAJ’s new, stricter selection criteria will be able
to successfully help filter out low-quality and unprofessional jour-
nals (e.g., Nassi-Calò, 2016; Van Norden, 2014).
This paper re-examines DOAJ’s new selection criteria with a
different focus. Like Marchitelli et al., it analyses the journals
eliminated from DOAJ after the implementation of the criteria.
However, while Marchitelli et al. compared these journals to a list
of questionable journals to verify how helpful the criteria have
been in weeding out bad journals, this study checks whether
some of the removed titles, that is, journals deemed to be ‘Not
Adhering to Best Practice’, actually have acceptable scholarly
1
Available at: https://beallslist.weebly.com/standalone-journals.html

Learned Publishing 2018 www.learned-publishing.org © 2018 The Author(s). 1

Learned Publishing © 2018 ALPSP.
2 L. Sun
Key points
• A total of 17.77% of Directory of Open Access Journals
(DOAJ) rejected journals labelled as ‘Not Adhering to Best
Practice’ are included in SCImago Journal & Country Rank-
ing list (from Scopus).
• Several (at least 13) journals excluded from DOAJ for poor
practices have a high impact factor from the Journal Cita-
tion Reports.
• Many DOAJ-excluded journals are ranked highly among
journals of the same subject by SCImago’s citation-based
calculations.
quality. Are the new selection criteria blocking more than incom-
petent journals? Are there rejected journals that should, in fact,
be included in the index? It is the hope of this author that, with
its new, stricter criteria, DOAJ will not throw the baby out with
the bathwater.
METHOD
DOAJ published three lists of journals on its website as of the
early 2018:2
• A list of journals added to DOAJ from 19 March 2014 based
on the new reapplication form.
• A list of journals removed from DOAJ on 9 May 2016 because
they failed to submit a valid reapplication within the given
time frame.
• A list of journals removed from DOAJ from 1 January 2014 to
31 December 2017 for quality and other reasons. This list and
the second list are mutually exclusive.
This study examines the third list that includes 2,842 journal
titles. The journals in this list were deleted for a variety of rea-
sons, such as no longer OA, no OA statement, inactive in opera-
tion, ceased publishing, invalid website URL, very few articles in
this calendar year, suspected editorial misconduct by the pub-
lisher, and not adhering to best practice. For the purpose of this
study, journals labelled ‘Journal Not Adhering to Best Practice’
were analysed, and this list was reduced by removing duplicates
by both title and ISSN.
The final list of the removed journals was compared to the
SCImago Journal & Country Ranking (SCImago) list with records
from Elsevier’s Scopus database.3 The latter list collects legitimate
OA as well as non-OA journals with publications that have
received measurable citations, and these citations are from other
2
Available at: https://blog.doaj.org/2016/05/09/doaj-to-remove-
approximately-3300-journals
3
Available at: http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php
www.learned-publishing.org © 2018 The Author(s).
Learned Publishing © 2018 ALPSP.
journals indexed in Scopus and therefore assumed to be reputa-
ble (Butler, 2008). Overlapping journals between DOAJ’s not-
best-practice journal list and the SCImago list were searched
against the Scopus database to obtain their journal ranking values
so as to verify their scholarly impact. Their ranking positions rela-
tive to journals within the same subject category were further
evaluated for an apple–apple comparison. The comparison was
made early in 2018.
FINDINGS
After cleaning up duplicates in DOAJ’s removed journal list,
2,794 journals remained. As many as 490 journals in DOAJ’s
removed list are present in SCImago’s records, making up 17.54%
of all removed journals (=490/2,794). In other words, almost one
fifth of the journals deselected by DOAJ are found in SCImago’s
journal indicators because they have received citations by other
publications over the years from other journals within the Scopus
database.
After selecting only journals from DOAJ removed list that are
‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’ the total becomes 1,294 journals.
Out of these journals, 229 are available in SCImago’s list, nearly
17.77% of all not-best-practice journals (=229/1,294). The per-
centage is consistent with that of all DOAJ removed journals.
The comparison seems to indicate that, although the new, stricter
selection criteria implemented by DOAJ have helped detect
exploitative publications, they may have mistreated some legiti-
mate journals.
Why should SCImago be trusted as a whitelist of accredited
journals? While SCImago has many unique features, the ranking
list is known for its calculation of citations depending on the
prestige of citing journals, while journal self-citations are not
included (Falagas, Kouranos, Arencibia-Jorge, & Karageorgopou-
los, 2008; Jacsó, 2010). This ranking strategy of incorporating the
quality of citing sources provides values to journals being mea-
sured by and made available through SCImago. SCImago contains
records derived from the Scopus database and quality controlled
by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board. Its
journals are generally considered to be ‘the core of international
scientific knowledge’ (Delgado-López-Cózar & Cabezas-Clavijo,
2013, p. 102; see also Gómez-Núñez, Vargas-Quesada, de Moya-
Anegón, & Glänzel, 2011). Numerous studies have used SCImago
as a dependable bibliometric tool to assess the quality of schol-
arly publications (e.g., Cantín, Muñoz, & Roa, 2015; Jamali, Salehi-
Marzijarani, & Ayatollahi, 2014; Khurshid, 2014; Kianifar, Sade-
ghi, & Zarifmahmoudi, 2014; Ramin & Shirazi, 2012; Siebelt et al.,
2010; Spiroski, 2010; Zacca-González, Chinchilla-Rodríguez,
Vargas-Quesada, & de Moya-Anegón, 2014).
Most of the above-mentioned studies comparing SCImago
with the long-established Journal Citation Reports (JCR), which
calculates impact factors for journals, believe the former is a bet-
ter indicator than the latter, or at least a novel alternative to it
(e.g., Cantín et al., 2015). Furthermore, SCImago covers many
more OA journals than the JCR, providing an excellent base of
Learned Publishing 2018

comparison to DOAJ. Considering that journals available in the
SCImago list constantly receive citations from scientifically repu-
table publications, its journal list can safely serve as a whitelist
for comparison.
We understand that journals cannot be ranked by using cita-
tion rates only, and to some extent, impact factors provide prob-
lematic measures for journal quality (e.g., Sylvia, 1998). However,
‘(e)valuating scientific quality is a notoriously difficult problem
which has no standard solution’ (Seglen, 1997, p. 498). Until a
recognized metric is developed, we will have to use citations for
journal evaluations, and SCImago is one among the best of such
measures.
SCImago uses its SJR values, the average number of
weighted citations received in a journal in the selected year by
the documents published in the journal in the three previous
years, to rank all journals in its dataset from 1 to 28,606 (the
number of records the author downloaded from SCImago). In the
ranking, 1 is the highest in scholarly impact, and 2 is the second
highest, which is followed by 3, and so on and so forth. In order
to simplify the evaluation of the positions of DOAJ-removed
journals in SCImago’s dataset, this study divides SCImago’s entire
ranking values evenly into 10 strata. Table 1 shows that these
229 DOAJ not-best-practice journals are ranked highly in SCI-
mago. Comparing to all scholarly journals in the world, seven
journals rejected by DOAJ fall in the top 10%, and 15 journals fall
in the top 20%. The largest number of DOAJ not-best-practice
journals is in the fifth stratum. The top 50% of the journals
ranked in SCImago include 112 titles removed from the DOAJ for
being subpar. Clearly, there are journals excluded from DOAJ
because of their ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’ that are, in fact,
comparable to the most reputable journals in the world.
SCImago also provides an opportunity for comparing a jour-
nal to others within the same subject category. Each journal is
classified into one or more scholarly categories, such as Immunol-
ogy and Allergy, Cell Biology, or Economics and Econometrics. All
journals in each category are divided into four equal quartiles by
TABLE 1 Number of DOAJ not-best-practice journals appearing in
SCImago’s ranks (where 1 is the highest rank and 28,606 the lowest).
Rank stratum # Journal Percentage
1—2,860 7 3.06
2,861—5,720 8 3.49
5,721—8,580 24 10.48
8,581—11,440 30 13.10
11,441—14,300 43 18.78
14,301—17,160 29 12.66
17,161—20,020 41 17.90
20,021—22,880 26 11.35
22,881—25,740 12 5.24
25,741—28,606 9 3.93
Total 229 100.00
Learned Publishing 2018 © 2018 The Author(s).
Learned Publishing © 2018 ALPSP.
DOAJ rejected journals 3
SCImago, within which Q1 has the quarter of the journals with
the highest values, Q2 the second highest values, Q3 the third
highest values, and Q4 the lowest values. The 229 DOAJ not-
best-practice journals have a distribution across four quartiles as
listed in Table 2. Hence, they are ranked at the same high posi-
tion among journals of the same subjects among all journals.
Once again, data demonstrate that most of the journals, although
labelled ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’ by DOAJ, have great sci-
entific influence.
In case one really doubts SCImago’s inclusion of journals
(e.g., Mañana-Rodríguez, 2015), a further comparison of some
DOAJ not-best-practice journals showing high ranks in SCImago
to the highly regarded JCR (available through Web of Science)
will help confirm the scholarly impact of some not-best-practice
journals. Table 3 provides some examples of such journals with
their SJR scores, as well as their JCR impact factors, all with
impressive values.
DISCUSSION
This examination of DOAJ’s selection criteria began when the
author noticed that two Library and Information Science journals,
First Monday and D-Lib Magazine, were deselected from DOAJ’s
list because they were considered to be not in best practice. This
removal surprised the author as both journals have been estab-
lished in the field with many thoughtful articles and abundant
citations. The values of these two journals are not limited to their
citation numbers but are also reflected in their impact on both
research and practice in the areas of digital development, internet
technology, and contextual sociocultural and economic issues.
Both journals are seriously peer reviewed, and First Monday, first
issued in May 1996, is one of the earliest freely online journals in
the world. With this in mind, the author decided to examine the
journals deemed by DOAJ as ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’.
A first attempt was to use the criteria published on DOAJ’s
website to evaluate its not-best-practice journals. The attempt
was soon proven to be impractical. First, there is no specific rea-
son given for a journal to be labelled as ‘Not Adhering to Best
Practice’. Reasons for removal from the DOAJ list may be ‘no OA
and license’, ‘no OA statement’, ‘Embargo on articles’, or the like,
which are all listed as one selection criterion (see Olijhoek et al.,
TABLE 2 Number of DOAJ not-best-practice journals appearing in
SCImago subject quartiles (Q1 is the highest rank).
Quartile # Journal Percentage
Q1 25 10.92
Q2 50 21.83
Q3 95 41.48
Q4 56 24.45
N/A 3 1.31
Total 229 100.00
www.learned-publishing.org
4 L. Sun

TABLE 3 The appearance of DOAJ not-best-practice journals in the

Journal Citation Reports, which also appear in the top ranks of SCImago.
SJR Impact
Title ISSN score factor

Theranostics 1838-7640 2.355 8.766

DOAJ
Journal of the Meteorological 0026-1165 1.873 2.909
Society of Japan

Oceanography 1042-8275 1.729 3.220 31 3

International Journal of 1449-2288 1.598 3.873

Biological Sciences
SCImago JCR
European Cells and Materials 1473-2262 1.361 4.000

Journal of Molecular Signaling 1750-2187 1.317 n/a a

Preventing Chronic Disease 1545-1151 1.256 1.802

Nucleus 1949-1034 1.162 2.387

Journal of atherosclerosis and 1340-3478 1.051 2.442

FIGURE 1 An illustration of DOAJ’s not-best-practice journals
thrombosis
in SCImago and JCR according to Marchitelli et al. (2017).
Ethnobiology and Conservation 2238-4782 0.969 n/a a

Chronic diseases and injuries in 1925-6523 0.935 1.621 Marchitelli et al.’s count and that of this study is because most of
Canada such journals were removed after the former research was pub-
International Journal of Medical 1449-1907 0.919 2.399 lished. More than two thirds of such journals were weeded
Sciences in 2017.
Current Oncology 1198-0052 0.894 2.048 The new selection criteria published on DOAJ’s website are
rather straightforward in language and look very quantifiable,
Australasian Journal of 1449-5554 0.854 0.853
with only a few exceptions.4 For example, Criteria Item #8, Web
Educational Technology
site that requires a journal to ‘demonstrate that care has been
Journal of Transport and Land 1938-7849 0.711 1.679 taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards’ is rather
Use
subject to individual’s judgement. However, most of the criteria
Source: Journal Citation Reports, 2016; SCImago Journal & Coun- appear to be simple to apply. DOAJ could have made its review
try Rank, 2016.
a process much more transparent to improve the credibility of
Journals not included in the Journal Citation Reports.
its list.
To be fair, DOAJ is not the only index where transparency
is not fully implemented. Whenever qualitative measures are
2015). There is no way to know the specific reason a particular
applied, such as the measure on peer review quality, its inclu-
journal has been rendered unacceptable.
sion criteria will become subjective. For example, Beall’s list
Second, DOAJ uses membership criteria, such as ‘Principles
has also been criticized for not being transparent enough in
of Transparency’, while not sharing relevant information. This
journal and publisher inclusions (e.g., Bloudoff-Indeli-
does not provide a transparent evaluation for users to count on
cato, 2015).
its inclusions as suggested by DOAJ. Consequently, this study
This study focuses on only DOAJ-removed journals that
has to adopt an alternative strategy by comparing the not-best-
both are marked as ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’ and are
practice journals to an acceptable journal whitelist. The inclusion
available in the SCImago dataset. Around 80% of the not-best-
criteria for DOAJ and Scopus are not identical, and so, their jour-
practice journals that are not in SCImago remain unexamined.
nals are different. However, it is the measure of Scopus’ journals
Future studies may use this group of removed journals as their
on the data of citations and citing sources that makes SCImago’s
subject to explore the scholarly quality and editorial/publishing
list accountable and comparable.
services of the remaining journals so as to paint a larger picture
The study of Marchitelli et al. (2017) also compared DOAJ-
of DOAJ’s evaluations. DOAJ is a popular and trustworthy
removed journals to both SCImago (Scopus) and JCR and did find
online directory for OA, high-quality, and peer reviewed jour-
some overlaps (in its Table 5). The overlaps are high: 23.15% of
nals. A little more refinement that reinstates the list-worthy
all removed journals in Scopus (=874/3,776) and 9.11% in JCR
removed journals will help improve the quality of its
(=344/3,776) but only 0.82% of not-best-practice journals in Sco-
applications.
pus (=31/3,776) and 0.08% in JCR (=3/3,776) (see Fig. 1). These
authors, however, did not provide further discussion other than
the presentation of the overlapping numbers. It should be noted
4
that the difference in the number of not-best-practice journals in Available at: https://doaj.org/bestpractice

www.learned-publishing.org © 2018 The Author(s). Learned Publishing 2018

Learned Publishing © 2018 ALPSP.

CONCLUSION
By matching DOAJ’s removed journals with SCImago journal list,
this study has made efforts to check the new selection criteria
implemented by DOAJ in the mid-2010s. It found that many jour-
nals labelled as ‘Not Adhering to Best Practice’ appear in SCIma-
go’s records, with a high score based on calculations of citations
received from legitimate publications. Although high citations do
not necessarily equate high scientific quality, the highly ranked
journals should have at least suggested their inclusion in DOAJ.
This finding indicates that some of DOAJ’s criteria published on its
website to review journal applications are rather subjective. If true,
this paper advocates a more transparent practice of DOAJ in
reviewing its journals. However, it appears that notable OA jour-
nals are being rejected by DOAJ, and that warrants re-examination
of the selection criteria and/or the evaluation process.
REFERENCES
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.
Nature, 489, 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals
added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613.
https://doi.org/10.1038/526613f
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who is afraid of peer review? Science,
342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60
Butler, D. (2008). Free journal-ranking tool enters citation market.
Nature, 451, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/451006a
Cantín, M., Muñoz, M., & Roa, I. (2015). Comparison between impact
factor, eigenfactor score, and SCImago journal rank indicator in
anatomy and morphology journals. International Journal of Mor-
phology, 33(3), 1183–1188. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-9502
2015000300060
Crawford, W. (2014). Journals, “journals” and wannabes: Investigating
the list. Cites & Insights, 14(7), 1–24.
 (2013). Ranking jour-
Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A.
nals: Could Google scholar metrics be an alternative to Journal
Citation Reports and SCImago journal rank? Learned Publishing,
26(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206
Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos,
D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with
journal impact factor. The FASEB Journal, 22, 2623–2628. https://
doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-107938
Gómez-Núñez, A. J., Vargas-Quesada, B., de Moya-Anegón, F., &
Glänzel, W. (2011). Improving SCImago Journal & Country Rank
(SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Sciento-
metrics, 89, 741–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-04
85-8
Jacsó, P. (2010). Comparison of journal impact rankings in the SCI-
mago Journal & Country Rank and the Journal Citation Reports
databases. Online Information Review, 34(4), 642–657. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14684521011073034
Jamali, J., Salehi-Marzijarani, M., & Ayatollahi, S. M. T. (2014). Factors
affecting journal quality indicator in Scopus (SCImago journal
rank) in obstetrics and gynecology journals: A longitudinal study
(1999–2013). Acta Informatica Medica, 22(6), 385–388. https://
doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.385-388
Learned Publishing 2018 © 2018 The Author(s).
Learned Publishing © 2018 ALPSP.
DOAJ rejected journals 5
Khurshid, Z. (2014). Measuring the quality of contributions of Saudi
authors to LIS journals using journal impact factor (JIF), SCImago
journal rank (SJR), and Google scholar metrics (GSM). The Serials
Librarian, 67(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.
909755
Kianifar, H., Sadeghi, R., & Zarifmahmoudi, L. (2014). Comparison
between impact factor, eigenfactor metrics, and SCImago journal
rank indicator of pediatric neurology journals. Acta Informatica
Medica, 22(2), 103–106. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2014.22.
103-106
Mañana-Rodríguez, J. (2015). A critical review of SCImago journal &
country rank. Research Evaluation, 24, 343–354. https://doi.
org/10.1093/reseval/rvu008
Marchitelli, A., Galimberti, P., Bollini, A., & Mitchell, D. (2017). Improve-
ment of editorial quality of journals indexed in DOAJ: A data analy-
sis. JLIS.it, 8(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12052
Morris, S. (2006). When is a journal not a journal? A closer look at the
DOAJ. Learned Publishing, 19(1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.
1087/095315106775122565
Morrison, H. (2008). Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The
Charleston Advisor, 9(3), 19–26. http://hdl.handle.net/10760/
10995
Nassi-Calò, L. (2016, 25 March). Open access reviewed: Stricter cri-
teria preserve credibility. SciElo in Perspective [Web log post].
Retrieved from https://blog.scielo.org/en/2016/05/25/open-
access-reviewed-stricter-criteria-preserve-credibility
Olijhoek, T., Mitchell, D., & Bjørnshauge, L. (2015). Criteria for open
access and publishing. ScienceOpen Research. https://doi.org/10.
14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-edu.amhuhv.v1
Ramin, S., & Shirazi, A. S. (2012). Comparison between impact factor,
SCImago journal rank indicator and eigenfactor score of nuclear
medicine journals. Nuclear Medicine Review, 15(2), 132–136.
Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be
used for evaluating research. BMJ, 314(7079), 498–502.
Shen, C., & Björk, B. C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudi-
nal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC
Medicine, 13(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12916-015-0469-2
Siebelt, M., Siebelt, T., Pilot, P., Bloem, R. M., Bhandari, M., &
Poolman, R. W. (2010). Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature;
18 major orthopaedic journals compared for impact factor and
SCImago. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 11(4), 11. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2474-11-4
Spiroski, M. (2010). Country rank, journal rank and H-index in the
field of medicine in the Republic of Macedonia (1996–2008) using
data from SCImago. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 3(2),
99–108. https://doi.org/10.3889/MJMS.1857-5773.2010.0106
Sylvia, M. J. (1998). Citation analysis as an unobtrusive method for
journal collection evaluation using psychology student research
bibliographies. Collection Building, 17(1), 20–28. https://doi.
org/10.1108/01604959810368965
Van Norden, R. (2014). Open-access website gets tough. Nature, 512,
17. https://doi.org/10.1038/512017a
Zacca-González, G., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., &
de Moya-Anegón, F. (2014). Bibliometric analysis of regional Latin
America’s scientific output in public health through SCImago Jour-
nal & Country Rank. BMC Public Health, 14(632). https://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-632
www.learned-publishing.org