ABSTRACT
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.
Funding Source This 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This 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.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Not Applicable
Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: All authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability
The study protocol, detailed search methods, data extraction and risk of bias methods are available on the Open Science Framework.
