Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review

Academics (should) strive to submit to journals which are academically sound and scholarly. To achieve this, they could either submit to journals that appear exclusively on safelists (occasionally referred to as whitelists, although this term tends to be avoided), or avoid submitting to journals on watchlists (occasionally referred to as blacklists, although this term tends to be avoided). The most well-known of these lists was curated by Jeffrey Beall. Beall’s Lists (there are two, one for stand-alone journals and one for publishers) were taken offline by Beall himself in January 2017. Prior to 2017, Beall’s Lists were widely cited and utilized, including to make quantitative claims about scholarly publishing. Even after Beall’s Lists became obsolete (they have not been maintained for the past six years), they continue to be widely cited and used. This paper argues that the use of Beall’s Lists, pre- and post-2017, may constitute a methodological error and, even if papers carry a disclaimer or limitations section noting this weakness, their conclusions cannot always be relied upon. This paper also argues for the need to conduct a detailed post-publication assessment of reports in the literature that used Beall’s Lists to validate their findings and conclusions, assuming that it becomes accepted that Beall’s Lists are not a reliable resource for scientific investigation. Finally, this paper contends that any papers that have identified methodological errors should be corrected. Several lists that were cloned from Beall’s Lists have also emerged and are also being cited. These should also be included in any post-publication investigation that is conducted.

Introduction. This study investigates the adoption of professional scholarly journal publishing software in Lithuania, with a focus on the trends and patterns of its use in 2020. It underscores the limited research on proprietary software and the absence of comprehensive country-specific case studies. Method. We compiled a list of sources by manually reviewing all journal websites and independently verified the collected data against other databases. Additionally, we contacted publishers individually via email to clarify the data. Analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive analysis with the help of SPSS statistical package. Results. The analysis reveals that the second or third-generation Open Journal Systems (OJS) software is the most popular open-source publishing solution, utilized by nearly half of the Lithuanian journals. The Social sciences and Technology sciences are the most frequent users of OJS, both in Lithuania and abroad. The use of OJS in Lithuania gradually decreases to 24% as one moves from publication towards production management, with a significant reduction in the use of OJS for manuscript delivery. The increased use of proprietary software for manuscripts may be related to pricing and the composition of the journal's authors. Conclusions. The ecosystem of scholarly journals in Lithuania has not yet reached the minimum level of technological advancement where all journals use professional software for publishing.

The variety and increased accessibility of digital technologies has accelerated and facilitated children and young people’s use of digital devices, but accelerated use can also lead to increased risk (Livingstone et al., 2017). Children and young people’s relationship with the digital world, their level of digital skills, and their opportunities to use devices and benefit from this use differ due to various issues and lead to inequalities related to access, literacy and engagement (Helsper, 2021). To reduce these inequalities and help support children and young people to navigate competently, safely, creatively and critically in the digital world, there is a need for strategies, policies, resources and guidelines to inform and support them. This chapter explores the results of a scoping review aimed at assessing guidelines and toolkits for supporting children and young people’s use of digital technology. The analysis reveals the existence of a large pool of resources available not only for children and young people but also for their parents and teachers. At the same time, the analysis shows a gap in toolkits supporting children and young people's communication with their parents and other adults.