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

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 [email protected].