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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |