Criteria for level grading KI-JL
The level grading of journals in KI-JL is based on an overall assessment according to the criteria below.
I. Reputation
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
I.0.a. The journal has low or no status within its field.
Level 2: High standard
I.2.a. The journal is leading within its field.
I.2.b. The journal has a good overall reputation, including with respect to the publisher and its editors.
Level 3: Highest quality
I.3.a. The journal belongs to the top tier within its field.
I.3.b. The journal has a very good overall reputation, including with respect to the publisher and its editors.
Sources for certain indicators (in addition to information available on the journals' websites):
- Norwegian list
- Finnish list
- Nature Index
- Association with learned societies.
II. Innovation and originality
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.
Level 2: High standard
II.2.a. The journal publishes interdisciplinary methods of high quality.
II.2.b. The journal publishes research with high news value.
II.2.c. The journal is selective in which articles are published.
II.2.d. The journal prioritizes original research (incl. systematic reviews) over non-systematic reviews, letters, and commentaries.
Level 3: Highest quality
II.3.a. The journal publishes groundbreaking research that pushes the scientific field forward.
II.3.b. The journal publishes interdisciplinary methods of the highest quality.
II.3.c. The journal publishes research with very high news value.
II.3.d. The journal is highly selective in which articles are published.
Sources for certain indicators (in addition to information available on the journals' websites):
- Acceptance rate
- Proportion review articles
III. Peer review
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
III.0.a. The journal lacks or has inadequate processes for peer-review.
III.0.b. The journal has poorly developed procedures for assessing the competence of reviewers.
Level 2: High standard
III.2.a. The journal carefully verifies the competence and independence of reviewers.
III.2.b. The journal clearly describes the structures for editorial control and decision-making after peer review.
Level 3: Highest quality
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.
Sources for certain indicators (in addition to information available on the journals' websites):
- Indirectly via:
IV. Impact and utilization
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
IV.0.a. The journal has no or very limited impact.
IV.0.b. The journal targets a narrow geographical audience (local/national) and has little or no international impact.
Level 2: High standard
IV.2.a. The journal has significant impact and visibility.
IV.2.b. The journal has significant international impact in terms of authors, readership, dissemination, and editors.
IV.2.c. The journal publishes research with potential for utilization or application, e.g., through impact on clinical or basic science practice.
Level 3: Highest quality
IV.3.a. The journal has very significant impact and visibility.
IV.3.b. The journal has very significant international impact in terms of authors, readership, dissemination, and editors.
IV.3.c. The journal publishes research with very high potential for utilization or application, e.g., through impact on clinical or basic science practice.
Sources for certain indicators (in addition to information available on the journals' websites):
V. Organization and communication
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
V.0.a. The journal’s website has unclear/incorrect/outdated/deceptive/insufficient information concerning, e.g., the publisher, bibliographic information, editorial processes, peer-review, editors and citation indicators.
V.0.b. The journal has unprofessional communication and unclear information on its website concerning aims and scope.
V.0.c. The journal has aggressive marketing practices to solicit manuscripts and/or special issues and recruitment of editors.
V.0.d. The journal has inadequate or unstable practices and/or infrastructure for archiving leading to high risk for loss of content.
V.0.e. The journal has an unclear ownership structure and non-transparent funding and fees.
V.0.f. The journal lacks oversight concerning research ethics in the publication.
V.0.g. The journal has unclear/misleading/non-transparent instructions concerning the publication process, ethics, AI tools and authorship.
V.0.h. The journal has an unstable organization, poor continuity and irregular publication frequency.
Level 2: High standard
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.
Level 3: Highest quality
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.
Sources for certain indicators (in addition to information available on the journals' websites):
- Cabell’s Predatory Report
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
VI. Open science
Level 0: Not recommended for scientific publication
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.
Level 2: High standard
VI.2.a. The journal has policies promoting preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans.
VI.2.b. The journal has policies promoting access to open data.
Level 3: Highest quality
No sub-criteria applicable at this level.