Protect your reputation!
Ensure research integrity
Use the power of the Fidelior™ metadatabase.
Scrutinize 37+ journal sources, 91 000+ titles,
and more than 274,000 records!
Over the past two decades, predatory, deceptive, and other questionable scientific practices have grown exponentially. Contributing factors include the rise of the open access publication model, an upsurge in exploitative scholarly publishing practices, and increased pressure on academics to publish. A particular concern is ‘citation pollution’, where questionable, fake or inferior publications are being incorporated into legitimate research. Detecting and avoiding citation pollution is a complex and growing challenge for all stakeholders in the scholarly ecosystem.
Questionable publications can undermine the quality, integrity, and legitimacy of the published academic record. It has the potential to affect academic rankings and ratings and create lasting damage to an institution’s international reputation. Questionable science contributes to wastage of resources and funds, it affects eligibility for grant allocations, and influences accreditation bodies. Through citation pollution, questionable publications can misdirect future scholarship and hurt science. The current manual process of identifying questionable journals is time-consuming and highly specialised. As a result, many scholars unknowingly contribute to citation pollution.
Fidelior™ has developed a unique service to check references across a variety of recognised journal sources, including so-called journal blacklists, accredited journal lists, vetted disciplinary lists, and citation indices. The service allows users to quickly scan a manuscript or publication’s reference list and receive a report which flags titles that are considered questionable or untrustworthy. The service also reports on reputable titles included in submitted references. The report helps scholars, peer reviewers and institutions to assess the quality of the references they use.
Make it part of your publication culture.
The most influential driving forces include:
- the competitive publication-driven nature of an academic career;
- a publish-or-perish publication culture that tends to value quantity of publications over quality;
- open access publishing that has become a breeding ground for unscrupulous publication practices;
- predatory or deceptive publishing that is an exploitative academic publishing business model;
- a lack of awareness regarding the problem; and
- controversy about mitigation strategies.
Use the Fidelior™ service to flag questionable and untrustworthy references for further due diligence.
Submit your manuscript only when you are satisfied that you can trust the quality of a journal or reference.
Fidelior™ service is simple, fast and removes the need for manual searching.
Do your due diligence,
don’t take the risk!
Why use FideliorTM?
FideliorTM automates and simplifies the process of assessing research for the presence of questionable publications and citation pollution. FideliorTM can help flag questionable journal titles in submitted lists of references to help users conduct their own reviews and due diligence. FideliorTM also reports on the quality of reputable titles included in the submitted references.
FideliorTM’s algorithm matches references in uploaded documents to a proprietary Metadatabase. The Metadatabase on the other hand is matched to a variety of journal sources and lists, as collated by various organisations and scholarly bodies through a variety of vetting processes. FideliorTM’s Metadatabase includes over 300 000 records and more than 91 000 journal titles, matched to 37 journal sources.
How can FideliorTM help?
FideliorTM offers the scholarly community a tool to assist researchers, writers, reviewers, academic librarians, examiners and other clients when citing, publishing, reviewing and/or examining research reports, or when doing research in the fields of scholarly communications, knowledge production and citation pollution.
FideliorTM can help with:
- Identifying low quality or suspicious journals.
- Finding good publication outlets and sources.
- Reviewing lists of references.
- Pinpointing differences between journal lists or mistakes on journal lists, e.g.:
- Titles incorrectly flagged as predatory.
- Predatory titles on reputable lists.
- Journal metadata issues, such as incorrect journal names, ISSNs, publisher data, etc.
- Identifying non-listed journal titles – multiple lists help with understanding what it means when titles do not appear on lists.