All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

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

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F20%3A00115949" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/20:00115949 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1299" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1299</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1299" target="_blank" >10.1002/leap.1299</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

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

  • Original language description

    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.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    10200 - Computer and information sciences

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Others

  • Publication year

    2020

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    Learned Publishing

  • ISSN

    0953-1513

  • e-ISSN

    1741-4857

  • Volume of the periodical

    33

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    3

  • Country of publishing house

    US - UNITED STATES

  • Number of pages

    15

  • Pages from-to

    308-322

  • UT code for WoS article

    000546687200012

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-85083103400