How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists

Abstract

Questionable journals represent an increasing problem in scholarly communication. The warnings about such journals are plentiful, but the methods used to identify them vary a great deal and make it difficult to accurately determine which journals are fraudulent or simply of low quality. This article presents an overview of the existing frameworks for identifying questionable journals and discussions around them. Most of the frameworks rely on describing the journals under investigation according to a set of criteria, and some can even be turned into a metric or mechanism. The development of frameworks for identifying questionable journals has so far been characterized by a great diversity in format, length, and content. Generally, the frameworks come with little information on development, validation, and reliability. The consequences of prolific tool development are discussed, and a recommendation for testing such frameworks is proposed.

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

“…The analysis of earlier published evaluation methods, together with our own approach, confirmed that there is a problem with standardization of the evaluation process and that one must not rely merely on compliance with formal criteria when evaluating a journal (Frandsen, ). As further discussion about journal evaluation method is indispensable, it will be useful to carry out a survey among authors regarding their view on what represents good practice in scientific publishing.…”

“…This may help detect phenomena that have been overlooked when evaluating journals. It has been confirmed that a close cooperation between authors and librarians is necessary (Frandsen, ), as well as the duty of libraries to continue with raising awareness about untrustworthy journals and helping authors with criteria assessment and detecting possible peculiarities connected with the journal.…”

“…The second step during journal evaluation must be an analysis of the journal's content focused mainly on its professional quality rather than on bad grammar or spelling as commonly associated with predatory journals (Edie & Conklin, ; Frandsen, ). Many authors have published in untrustworthy journals because they did not assess its professional quality (Frandsen, ) despite the fact that one can use one of the checklists that help to focus on the quality of text processing besides their professional knowledge (Andrew, Traynor, & Iverson, ; Coughlan, Cronin, & Ryan, ; Nadelson & Nadelson, ; Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, ).…”

Beall's legacy in the battle against predatory publishers

“…Many have provided suggestions (e.g. Frandsen, 2019), but it remains an open challenge. However, unless the community is able to agree, it is difficult to see how this pernicious practice will be eliminated, which is undermining the scientific process and infecting the scientific archive with papers that have not been subject to high levels of peer review.…”

“…When the issue was first raised by Eysenbach (2008), although the term predatory publishing was not used at that time, there has almost certainly been a significant increase. Many authors have provided advice and guidance on how to identify questionable journals, for example, Frandsen (2019).…”