Add research workflow guide

README.md

@@ -1,3 +1,57 @@
-# predatory-journals-guide
+# Predatory Journals: How to Recognise Them and Keep Them Out of Your Reviews
 
-Predatory journals: how to recognise them and keep them out of reviews, with source tracing via https://yila.ai
+Open access publishing has made research more widely available than ever, but it has also created opportunities for exploitation. Predatory journals charge authors publication fees while providing little or none of the editorial and peer review services that legitimate journals offer. They often mimic the names and websites of reputable publications, send aggressive solicitations and promise rapid acceptance. For authors, publishing in such outlets can damage reputations and waste good work. For readers and reviewers, citing or synthesising predatory publications risks building conclusions on unvetted claims. This guide explains how predatory journals operate, the warning signs to look for, how to handle them in literature reviews and how a source-linked assistant such as [Yila](https://yila.ai) can help you trace claims back to their sources so you can judge where they were published.
+
+## What makes a journal predatory
+
+There is no single definition, but an international consensus published in 2019 described predatory journals and publishers as entities that prioritise self-interest at the expense of scholarship, characterised by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency and the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation. The key issue is deception: such outlets present themselves as scholarly journals while failing to perform the functions that make scholarly publication trustworthy.
+
+It is important to distinguish predatory journals from legitimate but low quality ones. A new journal with a small editorial board, modest impact and occasional errors is not necessarily predatory. Nor is charging an article processing fee in itself a warning sign; many respected open access journals do so. What matters is whether the journal is honest about its practices and actually provides peer review and editorial oversight.
+
+## Warning signs for authors
+
+Authors often first encounter predatory journals through unsolicited email invitations. These messages may flatter the recipient, refer to a previous paper in vague terms, promise publication within days and invite submissions on topics unrelated to the recipient's field. Legitimate journals rarely solicit manuscripts this way.
+
+On the journal website, look for several red flags. The journal's scope may be implausibly broad, covering fields from medicine to engineering. The editorial board may list people who are unaware of their appointment, or whose affiliations cannot be verified. Contact details may be limited to a web form or a free email address. The site may claim impact factors from non-existent or misleading metrics services, or indexing in databases where the journal cannot be found. Fees may be hidden until after acceptance.
+
+The peer review process is the clearest indicator. Predatory journals often accept papers within days with no substantive reviewer comments, or with comments so generic they could apply to any manuscript. Genuine review takes time and usually results in requests for revision.
+
+## Tools for checking a journal
+
+Several resources help authors and readers assess journals. The Think Check Submit initiative provides a checklist of questions about a journal's identity, publisher, peer review and fees. The Directory of Open Access Journals lists open access journals that meet quality criteria, and membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics or the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association indicates commitment to recognised standards, although membership claims should be verified on those organisations' own websites.
+
+Checking whether a journal is indexed in major bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, Scopus or Web of Science can also help, but indexing is not a guarantee. Some predatory journals have entered databases, particularly repositories with less stringent inclusion criteria, and some legitimate journals are not indexed. Lists of suspected predatory journals have been maintained by individuals and companies, but they vary in methods and transparency and should be used as one input rather than a definitive verdict.
+
+## Why predatory journals matter for literature reviews
+
+Predatory journals are not just a problem for authors. Their articles can appear in search results, be cited by other papers and find their way into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Because they may not have undergone meaningful peer review, they may contain errors, fabricated data or unsupported conclusions. Including them uncritically can bias a review's findings.
+
+Studies have found articles from predatory journals cited in reputable literature and included in systematic reviews. The problem is likely to grow as generative tools make it easier to produce plausible-looking manuscripts at scale.
+
+## Handling predatory publications in reviews
+
+Review teams should decide in advance how they will handle articles from journals suspected of being predatory. Options include excluding them, including them but conducting sensitivity analyses without them, or treating them like any other study but applying rigorous risk of bias assessment. Each approach has trade-offs. Exclusion may discard genuine research by authors who were deceived; inclusion without scrutiny risks contamination.
+
+Whatever the policy, it should be stated in the protocol and applied consistently. Reviewers should document which journals were judged suspect and why. Assessing the study itself, including its methods, data and reporting, remains essential, since a legitimate journal does not guarantee a sound study and a questionable journal does not guarantee a flawed one.
+
+Sensitivity analysis is particularly useful. If removing studies from suspect journals changes the review's conclusions, readers need to know. If the conclusions are robust, that provides reassurance.
+
+## Tracing claims to their sources
+
+Claims often travel far from their origin. A statistic in a news story or policy document may trace back through several citations to an article in a predatory journal. Following citations to their original source is therefore an important part of critical reading. A source-linked assistant can speed this process by showing exactly which documents support each statement, allowing you to check the publication venue and the study behind a claim.
+
+When you find that a widely repeated claim rests on a questionable publication, consider whether independent evidence supports it. If not, treat the claim with caution and note the concern in your work.
+
+## Protecting yourself as an author
+
+To avoid predatory journals, choose venues you know, ideally ones where respected colleagues publish and whose articles you read. Verify any unfamiliar journal using the checks above. Be suspicious of unsolicited invitations and promises of rapid publication. Ask librarians for advice; many institutions offer guidance on journal selection.
+
+If you have already published in a predatory journal, you may find it difficult to withdraw the paper, as such outlets often refuse or demand fees. Some authors republish the work elsewhere with a clear explanation, but this should be discussed with the new journal's editors to avoid duplicate publication concerns.
+
+## Institutional responses
+
+Universities and funders increasingly address predatory publishing through training, guidance and assessment policies. Research evaluation that counts publications without considering venue quality can create incentives to publish in predatory outlets. Assessment that focuses on the content and contribution of research, rather than the number of papers, reduces these incentives.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Predatory journals exploit the open access model to collect fees without providing genuine scholarly services. Recognising them requires attention to solicitation practices, website claims, editorial boards and peer review. In literature reviews, a clear policy, careful assessment of each study and sensitivity analyses help prevent questionable publications from distorting conclusions. Tracing claims back to their sources, with tools that keep those links visible, is one of the most effective defences.