ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch IntegrityDefining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process (Papers: Samantha Cukier, et al | February 2020)

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process (Papers: Samantha Cukier, et al | February 2020)

Published/Released on February 09, 2020 | Posted by Admin on February 18, 2020 / , , , , ,
 


View full details | Go to resource


Abstract
Objective
To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers.

Design
This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals.

Participants

Post Beall’s List (and truth be told while the list was live) an agreed definition of predatory publishers (questionable publishers) is essential.  Also a good sense of their impact is  very important.  This recent open access paper is a great step in the right direction.

Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1.
.

Results
A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a ‘one-stop-shop’ website to consolidate information on the topic and a ‘predatory journal research observatory’ to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers.
.

Conclusions
In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.

Cukier S., Lalu M., Bryson GL., Cobey,. K. D., Grudniewicz, A. &  Moher, D (2020) Defining predatory journals and responding to the threat they pose: a modified Delphi consensus process. BMJ Open 10:e035561. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561
Publisher (Open Access): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e035561.full



Related Reading

Resources Menu

Research Integrity


Human Research Ethics

0