Distinguishing articles in questionable and non-questionable journals using quantitative indicators associated with quality
Dimity Stephen

TL;DR
This study compares quantitative indicators of article quality across questionable and reputable psychology journals, revealing differences but also highlighting quality concerns in mid-tier and indexed journals.
Contribution
It provides an empirical analysis of various quality indicators in articles from questionable, mid-tier, and indexed journals, highlighting differences and similarities.
Findings
QJ articles diverge from disciplinary standards on quality indicators
Mid-tier and WoS journals also show potential quality issues
Ethics reporting and statistical errors are common across journal types
Abstract
This study investigates the viability of distinguishing articles in questionable journals (QJs) from those in non-QJs on the basis of quantitative indicators typically associated with quality. Subsequently, I examine what can be deduced about the quality of articles in QJs based on the differences observed. I contrast the length of abstracts and full-texts, prevalence of spelling errors, text readability, number of references and citations, the size and internationality of the author team, the documentation of ethics and informed consent statements, and the presence erroneous decisions based on statistical errors in 1,714 articles from 31 QJs, 1,691 articles from 16 journals indexed in Web of Science (WoS), and 1,900 articles from 45 mid-tier journals, all in the field of psychology. The results suggest that QJ articles do diverge from the disciplinary standards set by peer-reviewed…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsExpert finding and Q&A systems
