Skip to main content

Security report for jci.org

The Journal of Clinical Investigation · Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) is a reputable academic biomedical journal providing peer-reviewed research articles, reviews, and commentaries in clinical research and public health. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand presence with high-quality content targeting researchers and clinicians. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including Foundation CSS framework, Google Analytics, and Cloudfront CDN, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and CSRF protections in place, though some security headers and explicit incident response information are missing. Privacy compliance is partially met with a privacy policy present but lacking a clear cookie consent mechanism. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy or query issues, but the domain's legitimacy is supported by its established academic presence. Overall, the site scores well on content quality, technical implementation, and business credibility, with minor recommendations to enhance privacy and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching jci.org

This scan found 25 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
32
Security headers
50
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
51

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention jci.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
293
Employees
0
Customers
258
Third parties
35
Weak passwords
17%

14 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for jci.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

JCI operates in the healthcare academic publishing sector, focusing on clinical and biomedical research dissemination. Its business model relies on article processing charges and advertising revenue. The site serves a global audience of medical researchers and professionals, offering extensive editorial content and multimedia resources. Partnerships with related journals and academic societies enhance its ecosystem. The journal maintains a strong market position as a long-standing, trusted publication with comprehensive editorial and ethical standards. Growth opportunities include expanding digital content offerings and improving user engagement through enhanced analytics and marketing tools.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and CSRF tokens implemented in forms. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security are not evident, and no public vulnerability disclosure or incident response contacts are provided. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism may pose GDPR compliance risks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site would benefit from enhanced security transparency and adoption of additional HTTP security headers to mitigate risks and improve user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Add explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information for security issues.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies for vulnerabilities and update accordingly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Journal of Clinical Investigation
Description
The Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) is a peer-reviewed medical journal publishing original biomedical research articles, reviews, commentaries, and viewpoints focused on clinical research and public health. It targets researchers, clinicians, and academics in various medical specialties including cardiology, immunology, oncology, neuroscience, and more.
Key services
Publishing peer-reviewed biomedical research articles, Providing editorial and consulting services, Offering publication alerts and advertising opportunities, Hosting video content and review series
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), Modernizr, Foundation CSS framework, Altmetric embed
Frameworks
Foundation
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of CSRF tokens in forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern JavaScript libraries
  • No inline scripts with suspicious content

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Altmetric
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Altmetric
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional academic journal with extensive biomedical research content.
  2. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity detected.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, but domain appears legitimate.
  4. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; content fully accessible.
  5. Use of multiple third-party analytics and advertising services.
  6. No explicit privacy or security incident contact information found.
  7. No cookie consent banner detected despite GDPR compliance claims.
  8. Website uses modern web technologies and responsive design.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a custom or proprietary CMS using Foundation CSS framework and modern JavaScript libraries. It leverages AWS Cloudfront CDN for content delivery and integrates Google Analytics and Altmetric for user and article impact tracking. The site is mobile responsive with good accessibility and SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of analytics and ad scripts. There is no evidence of outdated or vulnerable libraries. Technical risks include reliance on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing security monitoring. Opportunities exist to enhance performance and security through HTTP/2 adoption and improved header configurations.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with jci.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review jci.org.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.