![]()
|
Message:
|
Megan, eek, like you, I would not feel comfortable excluding certain journals. Maybe mention that western journals with high impact factors, decent reputations, etc. also have published flawed or fraudulent studies. This 2012 article's table comes to mind----
 But... it's complicated because "journals with high impact factors-a measure of how often papers are cited-have taken the lead in policing their papers after publication. In 2004, just one-fourth of a sampling of high-impact biomedical journals reported having policies on publishing retractions, according to the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA). Then, in 2009, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a nonprofit group in Eastleigh, U.K., that now advises more than 12,000 journal editors and publishers, released a model policy for how journals should handle retractions. By 2015, two-thirds of 147 high-impact journals, most of them biomedical titles, had adopted such policies, JMLA reported" ( Brainard & You, 2018).
TL;DR You could advise that they stop putting high impact (and western) journals (and labs) on a pedestal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Amy Riegelman (she, her, hers) Social Sciences Librarian
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 7/19/2021 12:36:00 PM
From: Megan Kocher
Subject: Journal credibility question
Hi all, A colleague shared the following question from a graduate student in natural resources with me. My response was that limiting by journal/country of origin would introduce bias, so I wouldn't be comfortable with this and would rely on the Risk of Bias tool to assess quality. But, I wanted to find out if any of you have heard this before or have a different opinion.
"Quick question about systematic reviews. Do you ever acknowledge or account for varying levels of credibility in journals? One person helping work through our articles (round 2!) mentioned that in her lab, they often don't cite work from many Chinese journals, unless they know the researchers in some way. Her work is in genetic engineering and mRNA, so that type of credibility might be more important/tricky in her line of research (as opposed to copper exposure), but I'm really not sure. What are your thoughts, or have you talked about this?"
-- Megan Kocher University of Minnesota | umn.edu | 612-625-3605 she, her, hers
|
|
|
|
|