Abstract

BackgroundThe increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology s (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing “legitimate” or “trustworthy” journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted.ResultsOf 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more “yes” answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool.ConclusionThere is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Highlights

  • The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk

  • The influx of predatory publishing along with the substantial increase in the number of predatory journals pose a risk to scholarly communication [1, 2]

  • The group recognized that identifying predatory journals and publishers was nuanced; not all predatory journals meet all ‘predatory criteria’ nor do they meet each criterion at the same level

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties. The influx of predatory publishing along with the substantial increase in the number of predatory journals pose a risk to scholarly communication [1, 2]. In defining predatory journals and publishers, the group identified four main characteristics that could characterize journals or publishers as predatory: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial/publication practices, lack of transparency, and/or use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” [4]. Lists of suspected predatory journals and publishers are available, different criteria for inclusion are used [5]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call