Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Researchers, clinicians and policy makers rely on the validity of published scientific research to make well-informed decisions that can have significant and life-changing impacts. Predatory journals (PJs) currently pose a threat to the quality and integrity of scientific publishing.
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review to identify evidence-based checklists (EBCs) to detect PJs, and compared checklist items against a consensus definition.
Methods: We updated a recently published systematic review of evidence-based checklists (EBCs) to detect PJs. All identified checklists were assessed using Cukier et al.’s (2019) 5-item risk of bias assessment; checklists scoring “yes” for 3 or more items were deemed to be an EBC. Boateng et al. (2018)’s 9 steps of scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of each EBC. Items from each of the EBCs were then compared against the 5 components of Grudniewicz et al.’s (2019) consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers (PJPs), a standard that did not exist when the checklists were published. Table 1 contains methodological studies cited in this abstract.
Results: A total of 4 EBCs were identified. None of the 4 EBCs identified had completed step 1 of Boateng et al. (2018)’s 9 steps of scale development and validation, indicating their early stages of development. A total of 47 items from the 4 EBCs were assessed against Grudniewicz et al. (2019)’s definition of PJPs, of which 28 items met the definition. Eighteen of these items were the same or very similar to at least one other item, while 10 items were unique.
Conclusions: Checklists to detect PJs are at an early stage of development and lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the new consensus definition of PJs, but also lack some of its features. The most obvious reason for this is that there had not been consensus on a definition for PJs at the time that the scales were published. With the recent consensus definition, checklists now have a clearer target, can make adjustments, and hopefully proceed to address methods standards for measurement scales.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None directly as yet – consumers and authors of the medical literature will be involved in steps leading to a consensus scale for evaluating open access journals for predatory features.
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review to identify evidence-based checklists (EBCs) to detect PJs, and compared checklist items against a consensus definition.
Methods: We updated a recently published systematic review of evidence-based checklists (EBCs) to detect PJs. All identified checklists were assessed using Cukier et al.’s (2019) 5-item risk of bias assessment; checklists scoring “yes” for 3 or more items were deemed to be an EBC. Boateng et al. (2018)’s 9 steps of scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of each EBC. Items from each of the EBCs were then compared against the 5 components of Grudniewicz et al.’s (2019) consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers (PJPs), a standard that did not exist when the checklists were published. Table 1 contains methodological studies cited in this abstract.
Results: A total of 4 EBCs were identified. None of the 4 EBCs identified had completed step 1 of Boateng et al. (2018)’s 9 steps of scale development and validation, indicating their early stages of development. A total of 47 items from the 4 EBCs were assessed against Grudniewicz et al. (2019)’s definition of PJPs, of which 28 items met the definition. Eighteen of these items were the same or very similar to at least one other item, while 10 items were unique.
Conclusions: Checklists to detect PJs are at an early stage of development and lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the new consensus definition of PJs, but also lack some of its features. The most obvious reason for this is that there had not been consensus on a definition for PJs at the time that the scales were published. With the recent consensus definition, checklists now have a clearer target, can make adjustments, and hopefully proceed to address methods standards for measurement scales.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None directly as yet – consumers and authors of the medical literature will be involved in steps leading to a consensus scale for evaluating open access journals for predatory features.