Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 9;10(2):e035561. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035561.
To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
进行德尔菲调查,为掠夺性期刊和出版商的共识定义提供信息。
这是一个经过修改的三轮德尔菲调查,前两轮通过网络进行,第三轮通过现场进行。问题涵盖三个主题:(1)掠夺性期刊的定义;(2)有关掠夺性出版的教育外展和政策举措;(3)开发阻止向掠夺性期刊和其他低质量期刊投稿的技术解决方案。
通过有针对性的专家的雪球和有目的抽样,我们确定了 45 名在掠夺性期刊和期刊学方面的知名专家。该国际小组包括资助者、学者和学术机构代表、图书馆员和信息科学家、政策制定者、期刊编辑、出版商、参与研究掠夺性期刊和合法期刊的研究人员以及患者合作伙伴。此外,还邀请了 198 名讨论掠夺性期刊的文章作者参加第一轮调查。
共有 115 人(第一轮有 107 人,第二轮和第三轮有 45 人)完成了关于掠夺性期刊和出版商的调查。我们就 33 项总调查中要纳入掠夺性期刊和出版商共识定义的 18 项达成了共识。我们就教育外展和政策举措达成了共识,包括制定一个单独的清单来识别掠夺性期刊和出版商,以及为支持这一领域的研究提供公共资金。我们确定了一些技术解决方案来解决这个问题:一个“一站式”网站,用于整合有关该主题的信息,以及一个“掠夺性期刊研究观察站”,用于识别有关掠夺性期刊/出版商的正在进行的研究和分析。
通过汇集来自不同利益相关者的国际团体,我们能够使用经过修改的德尔菲法来为掠夺性期刊和出版商的定义提供信息。该定义将帮助机构、资助者和其他利益相关者制定有关避免掠夺性期刊和出版商的实用指南。