Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
addClaim

Publication Forum (JUFO) Checklist of Problematic Practices in Scientific Journals' Editorial and Quality Assessment

Authors: Pölönen, Janne; Linna, Anna-Kaarina; Wahlfors, Leena;

Publication Forum (JUFO) Checklist of Problematic Practices in Scientific Journals' Editorial and Quality Assessment

Abstract

This checklist has been developed by the Publication Forum (in Finnish Julkaisufoorumi, in short JUFO) to help field-specific expert-panels in evaluating if publication channel meets level 1 criteria of JUFO classification. The checklist contains 19 practices that may indicate problems or raise concerns about thoroughness and reliability of the journal’s editorial and peer review practices. The checklist is not for predatory or questionable journals but focuses on journals aiming to increase the number of publications and/or to minimize the time spend for editorial work and quality assessment. In JUFO, these journals are increasingly difficult to evaluate because they may formally meet the level 1 criteria, such as peer review and editorial board of experts in the field, but the scientific quality assessment may not work thoroughly and reliably down the line. The checklist is a tool for identifying, documenting (where possible), and considering a range of problematic practices more systematically and holistically on a journal-by-journal basis. JUFO panels are free to experiment and implement this tool in their evaluation processes. This is a first version of the checklist, and it will be developed by the JUFO secretariat with the steering board, expert panels, and other expert communities. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact julkaisufoorumi@tsv.fi.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Grey area, Scholarly journals, Grey-zone, Expert assessment, Predatory journals, JUFO, Questionable journals, Journal metrics, Journal evaluation, Publication Forum, Scholarly publishing, Julkaisufoorumi, Journal assessment

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green