Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
| Autor: | Becky Skidmore, Lucas Helal, Manoj M. Lalu, Justina Pupkaite, David Moher, Samantha Cukier, Mitchell Wilson, Danielle B. Rice, Nadera Ahmadzai |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Web of science MEDLINE lcsh:Medicine Library science PsycINFO Scholarly communication Information science 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Medicine 030212 general & internal medicine Point (typography) business.industry lcsh:R General Medicine language.human_language Checklist 3. Good health Predatory publishing Trustworthiness Data extraction Publishing Family medicine Predatory journals Systematic review language Portuguese Psychology business 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | BMC Medicine, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-20 (2020) |
| ISSN: | 1741-7015 |
| Popis: | BackgroundWe believe there is a large number of checklists to help authors detect predatory journals. It is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content.PurposePerform a systematic review to identify checklists to detect potential predatory journals and to examine their content and measurement properties.Data SourcesMEDLINE, 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 SelectionOriginal 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 ExtractionPairs of reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed checklist quality and a third reviewer resolved conflicts.Data SynthesisOf 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.LimitationsLimited languages and years of publication, searching other media.ConclusionsThere 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.Funding SourceThis project received no specific funding. David Moher is supported by a University Research Chair (University of Ottawa). Danielle Rice is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health Systems Impact Fellowship; Lucas Helal is supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, PDSE - 88881.189100/2018 - 01. Manoj Lalu is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink