Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics and Scholarly Communication
• Research Integrity and Ethics

Background:

• The proliferation of predatory journals poses a significant risk to scholarly communication.
• Authors increasingly rely on checklists to identify and avoid predatory journals.
• The content and quality of existing checklists for detecting predatory journals are largely unknown.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically identify checklists designed to help authors detect potential predatory journals.
• To compare the content and measurement properties of these checklists.
• To assess the evidence base and risk of bias associated with these tools.

Main Methods:

• A systematic review was conducted searching multiple databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, LISA) and other sources from January 2012 to January 2019.
• Checklists were included if they were published in English, French, or Portuguese and provided instructions in a list format.
• A modified 'A Checklist for Checklists' tool was used to assess risk of bias.

Main Results:

• Of 1528 records, 93 checklists met the inclusion criteria.
• The majority of checklists were in English, could be completed quickly, and contained an average of 11 unweighted items.
• Most checklists (97%) were not evidence-based, and only three met the criteria for being evidence-based with a low risk of bias.

Conclusions:

• The large number and potential redundancy of existing checklists may overwhelm authors.
• The development of numerous, non-evidence-based checklists offers limited benefit.
• Consolidating similar checklists into a single, evidence-based tool could serve authors across all disciplines.