From Policy to Psychology: Analysing Evaluations of Journal Credibility Through Institutional and Cognitive Lenses

This study investigated how Croatian scholars in the social sciences and humanities assess the credibility of academic journals, focusing on the influence of journal characteristics, academic discipline, rank, and cognitive style. Using a mixed‐method design with 1307 participants, we manipulated information about three journal characteristics (peer review, scope/title, institutional affiliations) across eight scenarios. Participants rated the credibility of each journal scenario and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). Results showed that each positive journal characteristic, as well as its combinations, significantly increased perceived credibility. Scholars with higher publishing expectations were more critical than their lower‐ranking peers, whilst no differences emerged between disciplinary areas. Reflective cognitive style, as measured by the CRT, was negatively correlated with credibility ratings, particularly for scenarios depicting lower‐quality journals. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two‐factor structure, suggesting that scholars tend to categorise journals into credible and non‐credible types. These findings underscore the combined influence of structural and cognitive factors in scholarly decision‐making and highlight the role of reflective thinking in safeguarding research integrity. Implications are discussed for research policy, research training, and efforts to mitigate the impact of predatory publishing.