Illegitimate Academic Publishing: A Need for Sustainable Global Action

Nnaji, J. C.

doi:10.1007/s12109-018-9614-z

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In most studies (n = 55, 59%) there was no mention of data gathering for checklist development (low risk of bias); in 26 cases (28%), one or two citations were noted next to checklist items, with no other explanation of item development or relevance (high risk of bias) (17,18,21–23,29,31,32,34,35,39–41,44,52,81,82,84–86,89,91,93,95,99,102). Twelve records (13%) included a description of authors gathering data to develop a checklist for this criterion (low risk of bias) (13,14,25,30,36–38,42,49,92,96,103).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most checklists could be completed within five minutes (n= 68, 73%); 17 checklists (18%) could be completed in six to 10 minutes (15,16,18,20,31,33,(38)(39)(40)(41)(52)(53)(54)61,71,100,101) and eight checklists (9%) took more than 10 minutes to complete (10,19,45,48,65,75,102,103). Checklists contained a mean of 11 items each, and a range of between three and 64 items.…”

Section: Approximate Time For User To Complete Checklist Number Of Imentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review

Cukier

Helal

Rice

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We believe there is a large number of checklists to help authors detect predatory journals. It is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. Purpose: Perform a systematic review to identify checklists to detect potential predatory journals and to examine their content and measurement properties. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018), university library websites (January 2019), YouTube (January 2019). Study Selection: Original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese, with instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items, not including lists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed checklist quality and a third reviewer resolved conflicts. Data Synthesis: Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), had an average of 11 items, 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. Limitations: Limited languages and years of publication, searching other media. Conclusions: There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of evidence-based tools serving authors from all disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approximate Time For User To Complete Checklist Number Of Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Checklists to Detect Potential Predatory Biomedical Journals: A Systematic Review

Cukier

Helal

Rice

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We identified 53 checklists identified through our search of electronic databases. The numbers of checklists identified increased over time: one each in 2012 [10], 2013 [15], rising to 16 in 2017 [13,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and 12 in 2018 [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. We identified 30 original checklists [1,] from university library websites.…”

Section: Checklist Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across all 93 checklists, a mean of four out of the six thematic categories was covered, demonstrating similar themes covered by all checklists. Twenty percent of checklists (n = 19), including the reference checklist, covered all six categories [10,13,16,19,20,26,32,34,40,42,46,53,55,62,66,67,76,85,103]. Assessment of previously published articles was the category least often included in a checklist (n = 40, 43%), and a mention of the journal operations was the category most often included in a checklist (n = 85, 91%).…”

Section: Assessment Of the Thematic Content Of The Included Checklistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the checklists published in academic journals, 10 (22%) were published in nursing journals [25,31,35,38,41,87,89,[91][92][93], eight (18%) were published in journals related to general medicine [13,16,20,22,23,34,94,95], four (9%) in emergency medicine journals [29,36,90,100], four (9%) in information science journals [19,30,40,82], four (9%) in psychiatry and behavioral science journals [18,24,83,86]. The remaining checklists were published in a variety of other discipline-specific journals, within the field of biomedicine, with three or fewer checklists per discipline (e.g.…”

Section: Discipline-specific Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

Cukier

Helal

Rice

et al. 2020

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract