Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2025

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
"Evidence-based checklists" for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An
1Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; PhD Graduate, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
Predatory journals (PJs) pose a threat to the quality/integrity of scientific publishing. Checklists have been proposed to identify PJs, but few are "evidence-based". This study's objective was to search for/assess evidence-based checklists (EBCs) for reliability and validity, based on a new consensus definition of PJs.
Methods:
A published methods guideline for scale development was used to identify how many steps were completed in the generation of identified EBCs. Items from each EBC were compared against the consensus definition, and a list of items to be considered in the creation of a composite EBC to identify PJs was generated.
Results:
Four EBCs were identified. None of these had completed the first of the nine steps for scale development and validation. Forty-seven items from the four EBCs were assessed against the consensus definition, of which 28 items fell within the definition. A proposed composite EBC was created from items matching components of the consensus definition.
Conclusion:
EBCs to detect PJs lack assessment of reliability and validity. To a varying degree, the EBCs contain items that match the scope of the new consensus definition of PJs. With the recent consensus definition, EBCs creators now have a clearer target, and can make adjustments.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Reliability and Validity
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Significance Testing: Overview
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...

