Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review

Moradzadeh, Mina; Sedghi, Shahram; Panahi, Sirous

doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04520-5

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When responding to an uninvited email to submit to an unknown journal, potential authors are advised to use common and openly identifiable parameters to ascertain a journal's veracity (ISSN number, listing in JCR, publisher's unique name, and others), established and refined criteria to judge a journal's quality [20], as well as reevaluated blacklist criteria [16,17]. Further, the recipients of such emails should assess the content of published issues and the editorial board of a journal to assess whether fake or undeserving individuals serve as editors, journal website and publishing/ethics clauses to appreciate their completeness or weaknesses, and then make an objective judgement for themselves regarding the journal's legitimacy before they decide to submit to it.…”

Section: Authors Exercising Caution: Predatory Journals and Spammentioning

confidence: 99%

Caution with Journal Selection: Spam, Copycat Journals, and Predatory Publishing

Teixeira da Silva

2024

BioSci Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The modern scholarly journal is currently faced with the challenge of upholding its principles in order to attract a continuous stream of authors to maintain its publishing status. Further, it also needs to be weary of unscrupulous players (including competitors) lurking in the global knowledge stream that pose an existential threat by diverting academics away from legitimate journals using underhanded or unfair practices, such as the use of spam or journals that employ copycat names. It is not always easy to distinguish predatory from exploitative journals, or underhanded from unfair practices, and even the use of or reliance on publishing blacklists does not offer potential authors a safe selection of journals to publish in. Authors and journals thus live in a volatile publishing environment in which they are confronted with constant threats. In biomedicine, these can translate into reputational damage to the journal and publisher if fake science or pseudoscience is published, since it puts at stake the journal’s reliability for biomedical information. For authors, particularly younger or less experienced ones whose careers depend on publishing advances, a mistake such as making a submission to a hijacked or copycat journal that impersonates the original journal may carry long-term negative reputational consequences. So, such a decision can be career altering.

show abstract

Section: Authors Exercising Caution: Predatory Journals and Spammentioning

confidence: 99%

Caution with Journal Selection: Spam, Copycat Journals, and Predatory Publishing

Teixeira da Silva

2024

BioSci Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It provided a single "go-to" location and resource that gave a binary answer to our question. Even so, some academics have attempted to approach the issue via the refinement of predatory criteria [34,35,36,37,38,39], or scholarly criteria [40].…”

Section: How Do Academics Protect Themselves Against Predatory Publis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Silva¹,

Kendall

2023

CAJMHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.

show abstract

“…The significance of technology in the landscape of contemporary scholarly journals, both now and over the past decade, is evident (Ndungu, 2021). This is well presented in a scoping review on journal quality criteria (Moradzadeh et al, 2023), where the authors listed long list of aspects that should be considered when evaluating journal quality by its technical base.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a wide range of characteristics expected from a scholarly journal website, which cannot be easily implemented using general website management software such as WordPress or similar platforms. Only professional and dedicated software designed for scholarly journals can offer the comprehensive range of features expected in a scholarly journal website (Moradzadeh et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profesionalios mokslinių žurnalų leidybos programinės įrangos naudojimo Lietuvoje žvalgomasis tyrimas

Grigas,

Gudinavičius,

Petreikis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. This study investigates the adoption of professional scholarly journal publishing software in Lithuania, with a focus on the trends and patterns of its use in 2020. It underscores the limited research on proprietary software and the absence of comprehensive country-specific case studies. Method. We compiled a list of sources by manually reviewing all journal websites and independently verified the collected data against other databases. Additionally, we contacted publishers individually via email to clarify the data. Analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive analysis with the help of SPSS statistical package. Results. The analysis reveals that the second or third-generation Open Journal Systems (OJS) software is the most popular open-source publishing solution, utilized by nearly half of the Lithuanian journals. The Social sciences and Technology sciences are the most frequent users of OJS, both in Lithuania and abroad. The use of OJS in Lithuania gradually decreases to 24% as one moves from publication towards production management, with a significant reduction in the use of OJS for manuscript delivery. The increased use of proprietary software for manuscripts may be related to pricing and the composition of the journal's authors. Conclusions. The ecosystem of scholarly journals in Lithuania has not yet reached the minimum level of technological advancement where all journals use professional software for publishing.

show abstract

Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review

Cited by 8 publications

References 104 publications

Caution with Journal Selection: Spam, Copycat Journals, and Predatory Publishing

Caution with Journal Selection: Spam, Copycat Journals, and Predatory Publishing

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

Profesionalios mokslinių žurnalų leidybos programinės įrangos naudojimo Lietuvoje žvalgomasis tyrimas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About