Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

Abstract Background 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 believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncer...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Samantha Cukier, Lucas Helal, Danielle B. Rice, Justina Pupkaite, Nadera Ahmadzai, Mitchell Wilson, Becky Skidmore, Manoj M. Lalu, David Moher
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020-05-01
Series:BMC Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1
id doaj-898b3a30bc7e49a6ad3f1d832ec60e1e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-898b3a30bc7e49a6ad3f1d832ec60e1e2020-11-25T03:21:57ZengBMCBMC Medicine1741-70152020-05-0118112010.1186/s12916-020-01566-1Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic reviewSamantha Cukier0Lucas Helal1Danielle B. Rice2Justina Pupkaite3Nadera Ahmadzai4Mitchell Wilson5Becky Skidmore6Manoj M. Lalu7David Moher8Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteDepartment of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaKnowledge Synthesis Group, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa HospitalCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research InstituteAbstract Background 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 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. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (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. Results Of 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. Conclusion There 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1Predatory publishingPredatory journalsScholarly communicationSystematic review
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Samantha Cukier
Lucas Helal
Danielle B. Rice
Justina Pupkaite
Nadera Ahmadzai
Mitchell Wilson
Becky Skidmore
Manoj M. Lalu
David Moher
spellingShingle Samantha Cukier
Lucas Helal
Danielle B. Rice
Justina Pupkaite
Nadera Ahmadzai
Mitchell Wilson
Becky Skidmore
Manoj M. Lalu
David Moher
Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
BMC Medicine
Predatory publishing
Predatory journals
Scholarly communication
Systematic review
author_facet Samantha Cukier
Lucas Helal
Danielle B. Rice
Justina Pupkaite
Nadera Ahmadzai
Mitchell Wilson
Becky Skidmore
Manoj M. Lalu
David Moher
author_sort Samantha Cukier
title Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
title_short Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
title_full Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
title_fullStr Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
title_sort checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
publisher BMC
series BMC Medicine
issn 1741-7015
publishDate 2020-05-01
description Abstract Background 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 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. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (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. Results Of 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. Conclusion There 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.
topic Predatory publishing
Predatory journals
Scholarly communication
Systematic review
url http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1
work_keys_str_mv AT samanthacukier checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT lucashelal checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT daniellebrice checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT justinapupkaite checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT naderaahmadzai checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT mitchellwilson checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT beckyskidmore checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT manojmlalu checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
AT davidmoher checkliststodetectpotentialpredatorybiomedicaljournalsasystematicreview
_version_ 1724612128227196928