Cabell's Whitelist (Subscription required) is the best resource to find information on predatory journals. However, users need a subscription to access it, which makes it less than ideal.
Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers is a free resource that has created a list of predatory journals and publishers. The site also have some good resources to read more about the issue of predatory open access journals. However, Beall's list is not perfect. To learn more about the criticisms levied against Beall's list see "Beyond Beall’s List: Better understanding predatory publishers"
Directory of Open Access Journals is a free resource that lists reliable open access journals. The DOAJ seal is the standard of credibility for all open access journals. However, the DOAJ seal is often claimed by journals even if they have not been awarded it. Users concerned with a journal's credibility should always check the DOAJ site, rather than take the journal at its word.
I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How. by John Bohannon. This is a good article explaining how biologist and science journalist John Bohannon used a predatory open access journal, International Archives of Medicine, to get his bunk research published. Bohannon's research was retracted from International Archives of Medicine following the publication of the article in io9.
A paper by Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel was accepted by two scientific journals discusses a paper submitted that "has a totally incoherent, science-esque text written by SCIgen, a random journal article generator. via Vox
Retraction Watch is a blog dedicated to tracking and writing about retracted articles in academic journals. The creators of Retraction Watch have also created a Retraction Watch Retraction Database to help users search for retractions. The database is still in formation but functional.
RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children is one of the most popular examples of a retracted article run amok. The retracted study linked vaccinations with autism in children.
RETRACTED: When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality is another popular example of research gaining media traction, only to be retracted. This study was profiled in an episode of the popular radio show This American Life prior to retraction.
Science news can be difficult to write. Sometimes, miscommunication occurs. Here are a couple of explanations as to why that happens:
"Collectively, we agree that scientists need to be good communicators, but communicating science to laypeople is not a trivial task (Racine et al., 2005; Illes et al., 2010; Keehner and Fischer, 2011). Scientific ideas can be complicated and communication of these ideas often becomes mired in discipline-specific jargon and terminology. However, there is often an assumption that because scientists are experts in their field and think clearly, they are also naturally experts at communicating science to laypeople and can communicate effectively (Radford, 2011). There are certainly notable neuroscientists, such as Oliver Sacks and Robert Sapolsky, who have made their work accessible to the public through popular science writing. However, we do not think that these and other scientists who are literary figures in their own right, including Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, E. O. Wilson, and others, should be presented as evidence of scientists’ innate ability to communicate (Radford, 2011). These scientists have honed their communication skills over many years of practice and have sought opportunities for public discourse far beyond the extent of most researchers."
S. E. Brownell, J. V. Price, and L. Steinman, “Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training,” J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. E6–E10, Oct. 2013.
"I have been contributing articles about science to The Times since 2004. For the past four years I’ve written a weekly column called Matter. I usually base my ideas on scientific research that has matured far enough that it is beginning to get published in peer-reviewed journals. The biggest challenge in writing these is that there’s so much data to learn about, to mull and to transform into a narrative that will be compelling to nonexperts."
C. Zimmer, “What’s a Science Reporter to Do When Sound Evidence Isn’t Sound?,” The New York Times, 06-Oct-2017.
Does your source link to the original source?
Yellowstone Supervolcano May Rumble to Life Faster Than Thought via National Geographic
Yellowstone Supervolcano Could Erupt Sooner Than Expected via ExtremeTech.com
Has the author of your article interviewed the researcher of the study?
Where's the Proof That Mindfulness Meditation Works? via Scientific American
What is mindfulness? Nobody really knows, and that’s a problem via The Conversation
Has the author of your article consulted other experts in the field?
1. A tech-destroying solar flare could hit Earth within 100 years via New Scientist
2. An Earth-Sized Space Shield to Protect Us From Solar Storms Is Less Crazy Than It Sounds via Gizmodo
Solar storm could plunge Earth into technological apocalypse, but giant shield might save us all via International Business Times
Does the author have the credibility and expertise to be trusted?
Steps to Determining Credibility
If you have reached the point where you are questioning the credibility of the article, your best option may be to attempt to research the subject and claims of the article on your own. You can apply the same checklist to those searches. Good luck and happy searching!