Bad faith publishers are a part of the academic publishing ecosystem. While many researchers feel confident that they can distinguish between a legitimate and illegitimate publisher, increasing sophistication and a continued presence in the marketplace suggests that these publishers are an ongoing issue.
For this activity, you are tasked with comparing two open access journals, one that you presume may be of low quality and another that has been vetted by the Directory of Open Access Journals and deemed legitimate.
Step 1
Identify a journal in your field that you have concerns over the quality of and conduct a review of the journal using the checklist provided at thinkchecksubmit.org.
Step 2
Select a journal in your field from the Directory of Open Access Journals and conduct a second review based again on the checklist provided at thinkchecksubmit.org
DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.
Think. Check. Submit. helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research.
Complete this challenge
Having compared the two journals using the checklist, in the comments below write a brief insight outlining the main differences and similarities between. Reflect on your assumptions prior to investigating the journals and whether or not any of these assumptions were challenged. Also consider the audience for the two journals. Do you feel confident that readers and potential authors would easily be able to assess the quality of the journals and their publications? Why or why not?
Image Credit: Image used on featured image: W.Rebel, BinaryData50, CC BY 3.0
In comparing the two journals, I picked one completely new to me that I and the people I asked hadn’t heard of. The credible journal ticked off most of the questions on the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist, while the questionable one gave me unsatisfactory results. The questionable one looked pretty similar in terms of production as the credible one, maybe even a little too much so. I hadn’t heard of any of the editorial board on the questionable journal, but at least recognized most of the names on the credible one. I think if I wasn’t paying enough attention, I might fall into the predatory publishing trap.
The two journals that I selected consisted of one that I was familiar with from the Directory of Open Access Journals while the other, that I have never heard of before, I found on Google. Applying the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist made it very evident that the journal from Google was predatory and that open source journal was not. The similarities between the two journals were few: both claim to be double-blind peer-reviewed journals, both have easily findable journals, and both allow authors to retain the copyright to their work. The differences between them are what made their reputability and non-predatory/predatory status quite clear. For one, the open-source journal does not charge any publication fees, but the other does (not clearly stating the fee breakdown either). For another, while both journals list members of their editorial team, the journal from Google listed some individuals that did not seem to exist on the internet beyond their involvement on the editorial team. I think that with the two journals I chose for this activity, readers and potential authors would be able easily determine the quality of the publication, if not from their assessment using the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist, from the quality of visuals of the journals’ websites and publications.
I selected a couple journals online outside scope of my knowledge. By going through the checklist, the articles generally met majority of criteria on the checklist with some level questionable points; however, after comparing with the journal from Directory of Open Access, the journals selected online seems predatory. From the public view, without sufficient knowledge on the topic of select and checklist as a reference, it is difficult to identify the legitimacy of the online journals selected.
Both of the journals passed the checklist more or less, neither seemed particularly predatory. The OA journal was very well laid out and clear, whereas the other journal was actually harder to use and not as easily accessible. In considering the audience though, the OA journal seemed to be more student-run and less formal. I am wondering whether that would impact the way scholars look at it and its published material, versus the more traditional one.
It was actually more challenging for me to find a predatory journal than I had anticipated. Most of the journals that came up in an initial Google search were listed on DOAJ, which I suppose is a good sign! Eventually I found one that wasn’t, and it was clear from the website that it appeared to be more predatory. The web design was minimal. Though there was some contact information and details about APC fees, the editorial team was very general. The peer review process is mentioned but not in great detail. Ultimately, it seemed less professional than other journals listed on DOAJ that were crystal clear about costs, licensing, copyright, and archiving. I did find it a bit difficult to assess which was predatory and which was not, mainly due to the fact that many of the journals I came across were in the DOAJ. I think one of the biggest factors in determining whether or not a journal is predatory is your familiarity with the journal, whether or not you or your colleagues have heard of it before. I found many journals that were coming up that I had heard of, which you know are of good quality, and I think this awareness will be the biggest deterrent from predatory journals. Perhaps this is why scholars tend to go the traditional publishing route as well: maybe they cannot find an open access journal that they are familiar with, and choose not to take the risk of potentially engaging with predatory publishing.
For the predatory journal, I choose the International Journal of Research in Library Science (IJRLS). While the other journal is called The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion (IJIDI). The editorial board members referenced IJIDI on their work and personal website. Whereas I wasn’t able to find too much information about the editorial board for IJRLS. When I did find information about them on their work or linkedin site, they did not mention the journal.
When I first saw the IJRLS mention the peer review process, I thought it was sufficient detail with small paragraphs and an image. However after looking at the IJIDI’s exhaustive explanation about their peer review process, I realized IJRLS wasn’t as clear.
Another point I would make is that as a librarian and a bibliographer, I have to think about citations and references a lot. In the first article that I checked for IJIDI, I noticed the authors used a combination of in-text citation recommended by the journal (see paper template) and not recommended by the journal. For example, the authors wrote “According to Oliveira (2017) [8], the library functions as a social learning space impacting GPA through information literacy initiatives” (Sukula, Awasthi, & Dwivedi, 2021, p. 3). In the journal’s paper template, they do mention using the square brackets for citations but do not mention the round brackets. This happens several times in the article and I suspect the journal does not go through rigorous copy editing review to check for these problems.
I suspect librarians, library students, and information professionals will be able to assess the quality of the journals. Part of our training either on the job or in coursework is to evaluate sources. In terms of similarities, both journals provide access to their archives and display information about their editorial board.
link to the IJRLS http://www.ijrls.in/
link to IJIDI https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ijidi/index
IJRLS’ peer review process http://www.ijrls.in/journal-policies-and-publication-ethics/
IJIDI’s peer review process https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/ijidi/about
problem article http://www.ijrls.in/journal/transcending-learning-and-information-access-by-academic-libraries-in-the-perspective-of-digital-accessibility-and-policies-in-higher-education-during-covid-19-in-india/
author paper template document for IJRLS http://www.ijrls.in/downloads/
Months ago, I had flagged a journal as potentially predatory after stumbling upon a borderline nonsensical article result in EDS (it is indexed as part of a larger open collection of journals). I had not given it much more thought, other than to suggest it be turned off in our indexing. Taking a closer look at the journal’s website for this assignment certainly raised red flags, most notably the absence of confirmation of involvement on the listed editor’s personal or institutional websites. Moreover, frequent spelling mistakes, references to “double-blinded peer review”, and the exclusion of the journal from any reputable source of open journals all seem to confirm the initial nagging feeling that I had about the journal. That the APC is also referred to as a ‘donation’ for accepted articles is an additional red flag that I’ve never encountered for other journals.
My hope that any responsible academic would not consider publishing in this particular journal. The original article I uncovered months ago was so vaguely written as to be completely meaningless, and perusing the abstracts of the most recent issue (should) immediately strike the reader with their near incoherence.
The DOAJ-indexed journal, by contrast, did not raise the same concerns. The identities of the journal’s editors are clear (as opposed to generic “editor@domainredacted.com” contact details), the peer-review process was clearly defined, the website was free of typos, and the abstracts of the articles themselves read like they had, in fact, been edited. That no APCs were being charged also spoke to the legitimacy of the journal.
From my perspective as a librarian who has developed a fascination with predatory publishing over the last couple of years, circling back to further investigate a journal that set off alarms was a helpful exercise. My concern with directing scholars to Think Check Submit is that it seems to me that it may be relatively easy for those unfamiliar with, say, investigating publishers and their editorial policies, to get overwhelmed by the instructions contained therein. It also occurs to me that wise predatory publishers would do everything they could to adhere to the tenets set out by TCS.
After looking through the predatory and DOJ journal, I found few similarities and differences. Both journals provide access to their archives and display information about their editorial board. the predatory journal’s editorial board members did not mention the journal on their personal or work websites. Whereas, the DOJ journal mentioned their relationship on their websites. As a librarian and bibliography, I pay close attention to citations. I noticed in an article by the predatory journal, the authors combined two different citations styles in their article. When I looked at the author template by the journal, they had only suggested one citation style. This happened several times in the article and I suspect the journal does not go through rigorous copy editing process to check for these problems before manuscripts are accepted and published. I suspect librarians, library students, and information professionals will be able to assess the quality of the journals. Part of our training either on the job or in coursework is to evaluate sources.
I spent quite a bit of time doing this activity and found it to be challenging. One particular example I came across was very tricky and I spent lots of time trying to reflect on my assumptions. There were a few things that made me uneasy:
– website not functioning well, poor layout, glitches made it seem unprofessional, not cared for
– a number of affiliations (for folks on editorial board) were not from academic institutions; upon closer analysis, some of them were from non-profit organizations, others were from private sector companies, a few other names and organizations came with “0” search results, which was most troubling
On the other hand:
– I read one of the articles and it seemed of good quality
– the journal also clearly stated that authors were not to pay any fees
While this journal does not necessarily fall into the predatory publishing framework, the observations described would make me think twice before publishing in such a journal.
Initially, I also had a difficult time zeroing on a predatory journal. There was one I clicked on in a Google search “Advanced Journals”, and the message received was “Oops! That page can’t be found.”
So I tried another search, when you look at it superficially, the journal looks legit and organized. There were citations, I did not check these out.
The article wasn’t too badly written in comparison to a Journal from directory of Open Access. These were some of my observations:
-there was no prominent editor information
-could not see reference to an institutional information/affiliation
-no clear contact information, under their “contact tab” it asked for your contact information
-tried one of their links, this ended up nowhere (dead end)
-typos
In comparison, the DOAJ was very clear about all of the above comments. All their intention statements were clear cut.
Hello,
I picked the following journal for review Royal Society Open Science. I did not know much about this journal other than someone I know published an article in it and they considered very respectable for their field.
It displayed the Open Access symbol prominently at the beginning of the article as well as the publisher website address.
This journal is definitely a good journal to publish in as it has an anonymous peer-review process. It is listed in DOAJ and is a COPE member with copyright license CC-BY. It is easy to contact the journal as they provide a feedback email on the OASPA site publishing@royalsociety.org. Unfortunately, I did not see it on African Journals Online, but then again it is Open Access.
I found a predatory journal on an online list of predatory journals — E-library Science Research Journal. Since I work in a library I chose this one and it is ironic that it is LIBRARY journal. I have never heard of this journal before but the name sounds like it should be legitimate. This journal was not listed in the OASPA site. It is not a COPE member or in DOAJ.
I did find out it is published in India, so perhaps there is a bias as it is not a Western publication?
The website/contact information was difficult to pin down. Web address is http://oldlsrj.lbp.world/. At this site, I found a list of the editorial board. Several national and international librarians were listed as advisors, but there was no contact information for any of them. The website has little information about their peer-review process. Out of curiosity I checked our library catalogue and we do not have this item. I would definitely not trust this journal website and never recommend it for submitting articles for publication.
It was more challenging to find a predatory journal than I anticipated, but after taking some time to compare the two, there were some differences that may not be easy to spot for the average person searching. The predatory site did not look as professional and information was vague (such as unclear contact information, peer review info was lacking, etc.), whereas there was a lot more clearly laid out information on the DOAJ that made it feel much more appropriate.
My takeaway was to consider how predatory journals can make the research process more complicated than it already is for the students I help in the library. Many of them are using journal articles for the first time and Google is their go to search engine. Without enough practice or knowledge about predatory publishing, it is likely there are many articles being used that are not legit.
After doing this activity I felt more confused about predatory journals than before. The open access journal I picked (First Monday) is not listed on DOAJ but is quite a highly-respected journal in my field. Afterwards, I went to DOAJ and found that most of the open access journals listed there are ones I had never heard of. This makes me think that my field (communication studies) tends to prioritize non-open access journals except for those that are considered “trendy,” and has lead me to further questions about the disciplinary nature of open access and academic merit.
I looked at two journals with and without DOAJ vetting. The journal with DOAJ seal was easy to assess and it was easier to find necessary information. Furthermore, I was familiar with some board members’ names. But I could not find affiliation with the journal for every board member.
Contrary to this I was not familiar with any board members for other journal despite the fact that this journal was more closely associated with my research area. I was not able to access the websites of all board members and for the few, I could affiliation with the journal was not mentioned. I was particularly concerned when one of the board members was still a Ph.D. candidate with very few publications.
Both journals did not fulfill each and every criterion of think.check.submit. Furthermore, there was soo much information that unless the guidelines of think.check.submit were not there it would be difficult to differentiate the two articles.
Overall the journal with DOAJ seal would be the preferred choice since its most easily accessible with well-known researchers of the area. However, it is necessary to compare the two websites for making the right choice. For new researchers in the area, it would not be easy to make informed decisions without knowing what to check before submitting an article.
I looked at one journal vetted by DOAJ and another one I found on Google. I am familiar with some reputable publishers and this was a signifier for me and I was able to determine the difference between the two. I applied the Think.Check.Submit model but to be honest it can be confusing and difficult to determine with certainty if a journal was predatory, especially if you are unfamiliar with the journal and the publishing process. I did the exercise a second time, with a discipline I was not familiar with and chose journals I never heard about, again it was not easy, in fact it was more difficult to determine if the journal had predatory publishing practices. I found that the predatory journal met some of the criteria of Think.Check.Submit, this one had an editorial board but not much information on the editorial team. As someone wanting to have your work published, you can easily fall into the predatory publishing trap.
I found this module quite eye opening! I looked at two articles related to education. The predatory journal, “Education Reform Journal” was listed on a predatory list in a Google search. On the home page, highlighted in yellow is “Papers contributors may kindly note that they do not pay any processing fee or submission fee or any fee whatsoever to publish his or her paper in Education Reform Journal”. Clearly, they are aware that perhaps they are being touted as predatory! In the following information, the journal pushes its’ non – profit model and desire to contribute to the literature on education which is based on scientific knowledge. It also states that the open access is under a CC which allows for full use. At first glance, a reader may wonder why it would be on a predatory list, however, when reading further, you will find that the author’s have to sign over full copyright transfer of copyright agreement.. Also, while the www states it is peer reviewed, the process is not outline. In reviewing the editorial board, the members are from around the world. One member is from Nipissing University but when I looked at their university homepage, there was no mention of this board.
In comparison, the article from the The DOAJ journal which was “Higher Learning Research Communications” had very clear and easy to access information. I didn’t need to dig around the net to find anything for the checklist. The journal is published through the published by Walden University, USA. The www further notes that “HLRC is a participating data provider to the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). HLRC authors and their associated articles may be found via Google Scholar”. The peer review process is clearly documented and in relation to copyright, authors need to sign it over to ScholarWorks but the author does not “require further permission from ScholarWorks provided the author does not alter the format or content of the articles”. The articles can basically be posted in non commercial sites and be used in courses.
This exercise has really made me think about not accepting the fact a journal says it is peer reviewed as making it reliable. Clearly, this can be used as a deceptive tool to hide a predatory journal. Also, when submitting any work for publication, this exercise has taught me to really research where I am submitting my work and to consider my rights prior to doing so.
Creative Commons Licence
This Journal uses Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Adopting non-profit publication policy, the journal aims to contribute to the education literature based on scientific knowledg
I recently stumbled upon an interesting article (https://tinyurl.com/yg5no9u9), but struggled to understand how it was published in a journal without its bibliography.
The journal was Media Report to Women, which has a website that seems to sell the journal, but no easily discover-able archive or access point.
Upon comparing it to the checklist, it failed in two areas;
1. The website that it links to does not clarify who the editors or peer reviewers are, the process, or the fees.
2. It’s linked in the UBC Library database, but it doesn’t seem to be recognized by any of the listed organizations.
To compare it with a reputable journal, I picked the CLELEjournal (Children’s Literature in English Language Education), which was very transparent in comparison about who was overseeing the journal, what the process was like, and overall inspired much more trust from the first impression. I liked that the relevant information was linked and easy to find. Even though their website layout was not so different from the MRtW site, they clearly had placed an emphasis on sharing their process in their website design.
I went into this process assuming that the MRtW journal would not pass the test, because the lack of citations in the paper I found was concerning to me, and I decided to leave the paper out of my own research — I wouldn’t want to use a disreputable paper as a source. I’m not surprised that my suspicion was correct, but I do wonder – should it be removed from the UBC library database?
I think for the CLELE, based on the transparency of their practices, it would be relatively easy for people to find the necessary information. However, for the MRtW, because the website is obtuse, and gives the impression that the journal is housed elsewhere, were the researcher or reader not willing to put in extra work, I think it would be difficult for them to track down the necessary information to determine whether the journal is legitimate.
It is always safe to check the academic journal’s “publisher” before submitting your work to a particular journal. In other words, checking both the journal and its publication institution should be simultaneously considered to identify whether the journal is predatory. Also, in my experience, the vast difference between the step 1 journals and step 2 journals is that the step 1 journal requires the author to pay “publication process” fees, and their peer-review process is not thorough and very poor.
Very interesting exercise!
For this assignment, I took a journal I had ‘suspicions’ about and compared it to a more reputable journal from which I have read many articles. I compared IJOER (https://www.ijoer.org/) to IRRODL (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl). I would say that my assumptions were not challenged, since IJOER (which I did not examine closely before) was missing quite a bit of key information. This includes not being clear if it was properly indexed (though articles were assigned DOIs) and some of the publication guidelines. The journal was not available through the DOAJ, through my institutional library or Scopus. IJOER also appears to have two different websites with similar information. The main page is a WordPress site, and I found that a lot of the content under the Guidelines page didn’t load properly. However, if you navigate to a journal using the article DOI, you are brought to a different version of the site. IJOER did not appear to be predatory, just new and disorganized. The journal is clear that there are no article charges and that manuscripts go through a proper double-blind review process; I did not get the impression there was guaranteed acceptance of any kind.
These shortcomings were very clear when comparing it to an established journal, IRRODL, which I am more familiar with. Ultimately, it made me realize that developing clear guidelines, and organizing information in a way that’s easy to access for authors, is very important. As someone who manages the technical side of a journal, I’ve come to appreciate the time and care that goes into developing proper processes.
Regarding the audience, I do think both journals strive for an ‘international’ audience. Both have international in the name, and there seems to be an attempt to publish articles from a wide variety of voices. IRRODL has far more content to review, so it is not a perfect comparison. I think on an article-by-article basis, readers would be able to assess the quality of published content. Where IJOER falls short is that their site has some glitches (as least for me). Authors might find it hard assess the article processes (though it employs a peer review process) and the lack of publication info (i.e. the journal’s institutional associations) might be a turnoff, even if many of the articles are of high quality.
Very interesting exercise!
For this assignment, I took a journal I had ‘suspicions’ about and compared it to a more reputable journal from which I have read many articles. I compared IJOER (https://www.ijoer.org/) to IRRODL (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl). I would say that my assumptions were not challenged, since IJOER (which I did not examine closely before) was missing quite a bit of key information. This includes not being clear if it was properly indexed (though articles were assigned DOIs) and some of the publication guidelines. The journal was not available through the DOAJ, through my institutional library or Scopus. IJOER also appears to have two different websites with similar information. The main page is a WordPress site, and I found that a lot of the content under the Guidelines page didn’t load properly. However, if you navigate to a journal using the article DOI, you are brought to a different version of the site. IJOER did not appear to be predatory, just new and disorganized. The journal is clear that there are no article charges and that manuscripts go through a proper double-blind review process; I did not get the impression there was guaranteed acceptance of any kind.
These shortcomings were very clear when comparing it to an established journal, IRRODL, which I am more familiar with. Ultimately, it made me realize that developing clear guidelines, and organizing information in a way that’s easy to access for authors, is very important. As someone who manages the technical side of a journal, I’ve come to appreciate the time and care that goes into developing proper processes.
Regarding the audience, I do think both journals strive for an ‘international’ audience. Both have international in the name, and there seems to be an attempt to publish articles from a wide variety of voices. IRRODL has far more content to review, so it is not a perfect comparison. I think on an article-by-article basis, readers would be able to assess the quality of published content. Where IJOER falls short is that their site has some glitches (at least for me). Authors might find it hard to assess the article processes (though it employs a peer review process) and the lack of publication info (i.e. the journal’s institutional associations) might be a turnoff, even if many of the articles are of high quality.
I was surprised to find that a journal that seemed to “pass” the Think Check Submit test came from a publisher (Bentham Science Publishers) that did not. In doing some research to answer the checklist questions about the publisher, I found several news articles discussing their predatory and controversial publishing practices. In the past, I would have assumed that looking into the journal alone would mean that I had done my due diligence, but this was a bit of a wake-up call on that front.
For the predatory journal, I chose one that frequently sends me emails inviting me to contribute. It has always stood out to me as a huge red flag because the journal is contacting me constantly and my work is not at all relevant to the journal. Aside from that, the invitation is just odd – with words like “free” and “honored” bolded. The website is a bit less obvious though, and does talk about a peer review process, fees for publishing, and provides information about the journal itself. However, when you dig further there are some things like very quick publishing time and fairly loose guidelines for submissions (authors just email their manuscript! That’s the guidelines). What also struck me is that the website gave detail on the editorial board – of which there are 14 members. All 14 members are located at obscure international institutions whereas the mailing address listed on the site was in Ohio. I did some google searching for a couple of the board members and could find no affiliation with this journal other than as listed on this journal’s website. As I compared this journal to one listed in the open directory, I found that the one I looked at had more detail provided and more closely resembled what I would expect for a respectable journal. There was also some name recognition – which I think helps do some of the vetting process (however that may also cause problems because people assume that someone else did their homework). I think the audience for both journals I looked at were made to appear to be the same – authors looking to publish their work in a journal with a more specific scope. However, the predatory journal did seem to push the “easy” factor – both in what they were asking authors to submit and how long the process would take – while also doing it’s best to look legit. I think that with enough time, a well-established (or experienced) researcher would be able to tell the difference between these two journals if they put the time in to review the information made available to them; however, the predatory one did do a fairly good job of faking it in my opinion. I was definitely tipped off by their aggressive email campaign (like I said, I get these emails all of the time) and telling me they would be honoured to have my contribution when the subject isn’t in my field – but I could see some people who maybe do work in that field being persuaded to consider the journal
This was a really interesting exercise. I’m a librarian on contract, so I don’t publish too much, but I do have a lot of faculty reach out to me about their publications. A colleague of mine highlighted one a faculty member just published in: Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology. First give away that it may be dubious: the website. It looked pretty low-tech and I even wondered if I was being biased. Looking at some of the folks on the editorial board look pretty robust but upon further analysis, the website was rife with deadline links and bizarre certificates. Googling the publisher, the first prompt was “imedpub ltd predatory”. I think in the pressure to publish some won’t think too hard about the vehicle they’re using.
Comparatively speaking, another journal I looked through DOAJ is *chef’s kiss*. The details are clear. They address both authors AND readers, they clearly link out to their publisher and they link to the institutional pages of their editorial board.
I chose two journals that are within my scope of my professional practice. Using the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist definitely helped highlight some of the less obvious predatory characteristics. Having said that, both of the articles more or less met the the majority of the criteria. I consider myself to have good experience with scoping out predatory journals. Certain red flags that always ping me for me. What I find the most distressing, is that those who are novice in my field or even thought of the public looking to further educate themselves would absolutely not be able to tell the difference. The potential for significant misinformation is high – especially when I think of these predatory journals publishing non peer reviewed research on something like covid complications.
I receive emails all the time from various journals requesting for my to submit an article for publication. Interestingly, my own email separates them, mostly accurately, by putting the usually predatory journals in the spam folder and the journals highly valued in my field in the inbox. However, I did want to engage in this exercise if my immediate deletion of what I think were predatory journals has been accurate or if I missed some key opportunities to publish! Completing this exercise, however, did underline that my “detection” skills were spot on. It was helpful to learn some of the less obvious characteristics of a predatory journal through the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist. I will close off in sharing an interesting story. I remember when I just started as a novice researcher and received an email with an invitation to publish in a journal that was advertised as being one of the “best” journals in nursing. I could not contain myself with excitement. I went to even write a manuscript and when I went to submit, the catch was the hefty submission fee that they wanted me to pay and this is when I quickly learned how to carefully sift through these “interesting offers” I get my way. There may or may not have been a nursing conference I too attended with a senior faculty who thought it was hosted by Harvard University when all the conference advertisers did is rent a room at Harvard to host a conference to entice an international audience to attend a very costly conference. Tricks in advertising can get you and I would argue at any stage of your career but definitely more so for novice faculty.
This was a great activity for me – I’m a PhD student entering my second year of my program in the fall, so I’m relatively new to the publication process. It was so helpful to use the checklist as a reference and evaluate a couple different journals – but I do have to say, the one journal that I thought might be predatory appeared to check a lot of the correct ‘boxes’, (they mentioned double blind peer review; had an ISSN number, were indexed in Scopus, etc) however the big tip-off that I should be cautious (and would likely not consider this journal until I knew more about it / talked to some colleagues about it) was that it had a $800 USD Author Fee, no waivers available, and while they said their standards for publication were based on COPE, they were not a COPE member nor a member of DOAJ. Further, they published monthly and while they did not promise a fast turnaround time for publication, it was somewhat implied. In contrast, the journal I found through DOAJ (The Canadian Journal of Education) checked all the boxes, had no author fees, and was a publication I was familiar with and knew about the funding sources (and know they are reputable) – CSSE / SSHRC. I felt a lot more confident that I could trust that this journal was using appropriate peer review and they explained that the publication process takes around 6-8 months.
I’m not very familiar with publishing practices at my current stage of scholarship, so this marked my first attempt at searching for predatory journals. I conducted a brief Google search, and I noticed that many journals were listed in the DOAJ. However, the one not listed in DOAJ lacked comprehensive information regarding the editorial team’s credentials and the review process or timeline. Additionally, it was priced at three times the rate of other journals listed in DOAJ. The “sample works” provided felt unprofessional, characterized by a poor reference list and citations, and the content appeared unrelated to the claimed research field.
For this activity, I chose two journals focused on media and literature in the field of Asian studies. Journal A is considered more established and mainstream and Journal B is newer and thus focuses on popular culture. Unsurprisingly, journal B was not listed in the DOAJ while journal A was on the list. However, after reviewing the two journals, I have realized the outcomes for both journals are similar. I find both journals to be trustworthy.