JUFO Checklist

JUFO Checklist

The Publication Forum (Finnish Julkaisufoorumi, in short JUFO) has developed a comprehensive checklist to help both evaluation panels and researchers assess the reliability and rigor of scholarly journals.

Why this checklist?

Scientific publishing activity in so-called “grey zone” publication channels—positioned in the JUFO classification at the boundary between predatory journals and Level 1—has been increasing. A key challenge with grey zone channels is that they formally meet the Level 1 criteria, but may lack consistent quality assessment due to:

  • Commercial pressure: Competition for Article Processing Charges (APCs).
  • Volume-driven models: Prioritizing publication speed and quantity over editorial rigor.

Supporting rigorous evaluation

The resulting checklist was developed to support JUFO’s 300+ expert panelists in identifying problematic editorial, peer review, and publication practices.

  • Systematise assessments: Facilitate a holistic evaluation of whether a journal meets Level 1 criteria.
  • Harmonise practices: Ensure consistent evaluation standards across all scientific disciplines.
  • Support researchers: Assist the wider community in identifying reliable and rigorous publication channels

A Tool for the research community

Beyond its use for JUFO panels, this checklist serves as a guide for researchers to identify high-quality, reliable publication channels in their respective fields.

Recent feedback suggests that some problematic practices are now being observed even among established high-quality publishers, making this tool more relevant than ever.

This Version 1.0 remains a living document, subject to ongoing development by the JUFO secretariat and the research community.

Want a printable version of this cheklist? 
Download the PDF on Zenodo

JUFO Checklist

Problematic Editorial and Quality Assessment Practices in Scholarly Journals

Objective: Identify practices indicating concerns about the thoroughness and reliability of editorial and peer review processes.
 

Invitations 

  • Researchers are repeatedly spammed by email to act as authors, reviewers, and/or editors.
  • Researchers are invited to contribute to journals or special/theme issues outside their field of expertise.
  • Prominent researchers are enticed to become authors, reviewers or editors by offering discounts or waivers on publication fees.
 

Editorial Process

  • Reviewer invitation/selection and/or publication decisions are made automatically without active editorial decision-making.
  • Editors have limited or restricted opportunities to influence who is invited to review and which manuscripts are published.
  • Editors are pressured or encouraged to increase the number of articles processed and/or accepted for publication.
  • Researchers are required to revise, review, or perform editorial tasks within unreasonably short deadlines.
 

Peer Review

  • Researchers frequently receive low-quality or superficial peer review reports.
  • Reviews are provided by individuals lacking expertise in the specific field of the submitted research.
  • A reviewer suggesting changes to a manuscript is not given the opportunity to verify whether the corrections have been properly implemented before publication.
  • A reviewer or editor recommending rejection or not meeting deadline is removed from the process or replaced or bypassed.
 

Publication Decisions

  • Published articles have often been recommended for rejection by reviewers (either in the same or another journal).
  • The editorial or review process for special/theme issues is often handled by guest editors rather than the journal’s own editorial team.
  • Published articles are regularly authored by editors or editorial board members.
  • The volume of publications increases at an unusually rapid pace within a short time.
 

Published Research

  • Published research frequently falls outside the stated scope of the journal, or the scope is vaguely defined.
  • Published articles contain a disproportionately high number of self-citations to the journal or to the authors’ own works.
  • Editors or reviewers regularly request the addition of citations to published articles without scientific justification.
  • Published research is repeatedly of poor quality or is compromised by research misconduct, unacceptable practices, or inappropriately AI-generated content.
Questions or suggestions? Contact julkaisufoorumi[at]tsv.fi