When a panellist signs in to the JUFO portal, there will be a list of the panellist’s own Panels that are currently under complementary evaluation. The publication channels proposed for Publication Forum Level 1 are evaluated several times each year (Level 1 criteria). The publication channels that will be evaluated are either proposed by the members of the scientific community or journals or book publishers coming through the publication data collection (VIRTA publication data service) of Finnish universities that have not yet been evaluated. In addition, there are proposals for upgrading those on Level 0 to Level 1 or downgrading those on Level 1 to Level 0. If the column "Level" is empty, then the channel has not been evaluated before. If there is a zero in the "Level" column, then this is a channel that was rated at Level 0 in a previous complementary evaluation, but which is now back as a candidate for Level 1.

The deadline by which the chair of the panel must confirm the evaluation, is notified in the column on the left side of the channel name. The default value of the publication channel type is “All”, but if there are a lot of items to evaluate, you can also filter the channels by type (book publishers, series, conferences).

More detailed information on a publication channel can be found in the detailed view, which you can access by clicking on the name of the channel. This information includes bibliographical information, proposals by third parties concerning the publication channel and potential earlier evaluations of the channel in question.

Usefuls tools in recognizing possible predatory journals are the list of publications that are removed from the DOAJ (see the tab Removed) and Cabell's International Blacklist. However, not all grounds that lead journal to be removed from DOAJ are so severe that they would prevent the journal to be accepted on level 1. For example "Journal not adhering Best Practices" may mean various things (DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing). Instead, "Suspected editorial misconduct by publisher" is considered a severe violation. The secretariat follows the situation and brings cases found on these list back to complementary evaluation. 

It is the chair’s or vice chair’s responsibility to confirm the complementary evaluation of their own panel by the deadline. If the evaluations provided by the panellists are conflicting, the channels will be given the level as follows: primarily based on the evaluation of the chair, secondarily by that of the vice chair and thirdly by that of a panel member. The publication channels for which none of the panellists have made a classification proposal, shall remain at Level 0.