Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal
criteria to a complex view

J 2020

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

KRATOCHVÍL, Jiří; Lukáš PLCH; Martin SEBERA a Eva KORIŤÁKOVÁ

Základní údaje

Originální název

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Autoři

KRATOCHVÍL, Jiří; Lukáš PLCH; Martin SEBERA a Eva KORIŤÁKOVÁ

Vydání

Learned Publishing, Hoboken, Wiley, 2020, 0953-1513

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

10200 1.2 Computer and information sciences

Stát vydavatele

Spojené státy

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

Plný text na webu časopisu, Plný text na webu časopisu

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 2.506

Označené pro přenos do RIV

Ano

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14110/20:00115949

Organizační jednotka

Lékařská fakulta

Klíčová slova anglicky

untrustworthy journals; predatory journals; evaluation criteria

Štítky

14119612, podil, rivok

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 3. 8. 2020 13:19, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Anotace

V originále

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.

Přiložené soubory

2019-Kratochvil-untrust-edited.pdf Verze souboru

leap.1299.pdf

Požádat o autorskou verzi souboru

Citovat

KRATOCHVÍL, Jiří; Lukáš PLCH; Martin SEBERA a Eva KORIŤÁKOVÁ. Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view. Learned Publishing. Hoboken: Wiley, 2020, roč. 33, č. 3, s. 308-322. ISSN 0953-1513. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299.

@article{1669782,
   author = {Kratochvíl, Jiří and Plch, Lukáš and Sebera, Martin and Koriťáková, Eva},
   article_location = {Hoboken},
   article_number = {3},
   doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299},
   keywords = {untrustworthy journals; predatory journals; evaluation criteria},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {0953-1513},
   journal = {Learned Publishing},
   title = {Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view},
   url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1299},
   volume = {33},
   year = {2020}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1669782
AU  - Kratochvíl, Jiří - Plch, Lukáš - Sebera, Martin - Koriťáková, Eva
PY  - 2020
TI  - Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view
JF  - Learned Publishing
VL  - 33
IS  - 3
SP  - 308-322
EP  - 308-322
PB  - Wiley
SN  - 09531513
KW  - untrustworthy journals
KW  - predatory journals
KW  - evaluation criteria
UR  - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1299
L2  - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1299
N2  - Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.
ER  -

KRATOCHVÍL, Jiří; Lukáš PLCH; Martin SEBERA a Eva KORIŤÁKOVÁ. Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view. \textit{Learned Publishing}. Hoboken: Wiley, 2020, roč.~33, č.~3, s.~308-322. ISSN~0953-1513. Dostupné z: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299.

Přehled o publikaci