Predatory publishing

"Think. Check. Submit." poster by an international initiative to help researchers avoid predatory publishing

Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing ^{[1] [2]} or deceptive publishing, ^[3] is an exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer-review process, is highly non-transparent, and often utilizes aggressive solicitation practices. ^[4]

The phenomenon of "open-access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall around 2012, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment". ^[5] However, criticisms about the label "predatory" have been raised. ^[6] A lengthy review of the controversy started by Beall appears in The Journal of Academic Librarianship . ^[7]

Predatory publishers are so regarded because scholars are tricked into publishing with them, although some authors may be aware that the journal is poor quality or even fraudulent but publish in them anyway. ^[a] New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being misled by predatory publishers. ^{[9] [10] [11]} A 2022 report found that "nearly a quarter of the respondents from 112 countries, and across all disciplines and career stages, indicated that they had either published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. The majority of those who did so unknowingly cited a lack of awareness of predatory practices; whereas the majority of those who did so knowingly cited the need to advance their careers." ^[12]

According to one study, 60% of articles published in predatory journals receive no citations over the five-year period following publication. ^{[13] [14]}

Actors seeking to maintain the scholarly ecosystem have sought to minimize the influence of predatory publishing through the use of blacklists such as Beall's List and Cabell's blacklist, as well as through whitelists such as the Directory of Open Access Journals. Nevertheless, identifying (and even providing a quantitative definition) of predatory journals remains difficult, because it is a spectrum rather than a binary phenomenon. ^[15] In the same issue of a journal it is possible to find articles which meet the highest criteria for scientific integrity, and articles which have one or more unethical issues.

History

In March 2008, Gunther Eysenbach, publisher of an early open-access journal, drew attention to what he called "black sheep among open-access publishers and journals" ^[16] and highlighted in his blog publishers and journals which resorted to excessive spam to attract authors and editors, criticizing in particular Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, and Libertas Academica. In July 2008, Richard Poynder's interview series brought attention to the practices of new publishers who were "better able to exploit the opportunities of the new environment." ^[17] Doubts about honesty and scams in a subset of open-access journals continued to be raised in 2009. ^{[18] [19]}

Concerns for spamming practices from these journals prompted leading open-access publishers to create the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in 2008. ^[20] In another early precedent, in 2009 the Improbable Research blog had found that Scientific Research Publishing's journals duplicated papers already published elsewhere; ^[21] the case was subsequently reported in Nature . ^[22] In 2010, Cornell University graduate student Phil Davis (editor of the Scholarly Kitchen blog) submitted a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense (using SCIgen), which was accepted for a fee (but withdrawn by the author). ^[23] Predatory publishers have been reported to hold submissions hostage, refusing to allow them to be withdrawn and thereby preventing submission in another journal. ^{[24] [25]}

Predatory publishing does not refer to a homogeneous category of practices. The name itself was coined by American librarian Jeffrey Beall who created a list of "deceptive and fraudulent" Open Access (OA) publishers, which was used as reference until withdrawn in 2017. The term has been reused since for a new for-profit database by Cabell's International. ^[26] On the one hand, Beall's list as well as Cabell's International database do include truly fraudulent and deceptive OA publishers that pretend to provide services (in particular quality peer review) which they do not implement, show fictive editorial boards and/or ISSN numbers, use dubious marketing and spamming techniques, or even hijacking known titles. ^[27] On the other hand, they also list journals with subpar standards of peer review and linguistic correction. ^[28]

Studies using Beall's list, or his definitions, report an exponential growth in predatory journals since 2010. ^{[29] [30]} A 2020 study has found hundreds of scientists say they have reviewed papers for journals termed 'predatory' — although they might not know it. An analysis of the Publons has found that it hosts at least 6,000 records of reviews for more than 1,000 predatory journals. "The researchers who review most for these titles tend to be young, inexperienced and affiliated with institutions in low-income nations in Africa and the Middle East." ^[31]

The demonstration of unethical practices in the OA publishing industry has also attracted considerable media attention. ^[32]

Bohannon's experiment

In 2013, John Bohannon, a staff writer for the journal Science and for popular science publications, tested the open-access system by submitting to a number of such journals a deeply flawed paper on the purported effect of a lichen constituent, and published the results in a paper called, "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". About 60% of those journals, including journals of Elsevier, SAGE, Wolters Kluwer (through its subsidiary Medknow), and several universities, accepted the faked medical paper. PLOS ONE and Hindawi rejected it. ^[32]

"Dr Fraud" experiment

In 2015, four researchers created a fictitious sub-par scientist named Anna O. Szust (oszust is Polish for "fraudster"), and applied on her behalf for an editor position to 360 scholarly journals. Szust's qualifications were dismal for the role of an editor; she had never published a single article and had no editorial experience. The books and book chapters listed on her CV were made-up, as were the publishing houses that published the books.

One-third of the journals to which Szust applied were sampled from Beall's List of predatory journals. Forty of these predatory journals accepted Szust as editor without any background vetting and often within days or even hours. By comparison, she received minimal to no positive response from the "control" journals which "must meet certain standards of quality, including ethical publishing practices." ^[33] Among journals sampled from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), 8 of 120 accepted Szust. The DOAJ has since removed some of the affected journals in a 2016 purge. None of the 120 sampled journals listed in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) offered Szust the position.

The results of the experiment were published in Nature in March 2017, ^[33] and widely presented in the press. ^{[34] [35] [36]}

SCIgen experiments

SCIgen, a computer program that randomly generates academic computer science papers using context-free grammar, has generated papers that have been accepted by a number of predatory journals as well as predatory conferences. ^{[37] [38]}

Federal Trade Commission vs. OMICS Group, Inc.

On 25 August 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the OMICS Group, iMedPub, Conference Series, and the individual Srinubabu Gedela, an Indian national who is president of the companies. ^[39] In the lawsuit, the defendants are accused of "deceiving academics and researchers about the nature of its publications and hiding publication fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars". ^[40] The FTC was also responding to pressure to take action against predatory publishers. ^[41] Attorneys for the OMICS Group published a response on their website, claiming "your FTC allegations are baseless. Further we understand that FTC working towards favoring some subscription based journals publishers who are earring [ sic ] Billions of dollars rom [ sic ] scientists literature", suggesting that corporations in the scientific publishing business were behind the allegations. ^[39] In March 2019, the FTC won the suit in a summary judgement and was awarded $50,130,811 in damages and a broad injunction against OMICS practices. ^{[42] [43] [44]} It is unlikely that the FTC will ever collect the award, since the rulings of US courts are not enforceable in India, and since OMICS does not have property in the US. ^[45]

Characteristics

Recognizing common characteristics of predatory publishers can help to avoid them. ^[46] Complaints that are associated with predatory open-access publishing include:

• Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control, ^[47] including hoax and nonsensical papers. ^{[23] [48] [49]}
• Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted. ^[47]
• Accepting papers which are outside of the declared scope of the journal. ^[50]
• Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial boards. ^[51]
• Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission, ^{[52] [53]} and not allowing academics to resign from editorial boards. ^{[52] [54]}
• Appointing fake academics to editorial boards. ^[55]
• Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals. ^[54]
• Making misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as providing false locations. ^[52]
• Using ISSNs ^[52] improperly.
• Citing fake ^{[56] [57]} or non-existent impact factors.
• Boasting about being "indexed" by academic social networking sites (like ResearchGate) and standard identifiers (like ISSNs and DOIs) as if they were prestigious or reputable bibliographic databases. ^[58]
• Favoritism and self-promotion in peer review. ^[59]

Predatory publishers have also been compared to vanity presses. ^{[60] [61]}

Beall's criteria

Further information: § Beall's List

In 2015, Jeffrey Beall used 26 criteria related to poor journal standards and practices, 9 related to journal editors and staff members, 7 related to ethics and integrity, 6 related to the publisher's business practices, and 6 'other' general criteria related to publishers. ^[62] He also listed 26 additional practices, which were 'reflective of poor journal standards' which were not necessarily indicative of predatory behaviour.

Eriksson and Helgesson's 25 criteria

In 2016, researchers Stefan Eriksson and Gert Helgesson identified 25 signs of predatory publishing. ^[63] They warn that a journal will not necessarily be predatory if they meet one of the criteria, "but the more points on the list that apply to the journal at hand, the more sceptical you should be." The full list is quoted below:

1. The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organisation committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)
2. The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)
3. The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started
4. The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues
5. The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science)
6. There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers
7. The journal website is not professional
8. The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations
9. The journal website does not reveal the journal's editorial office location or uses an incorrect address
10. The publishing schedule is not clearly stated
11. The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as "American Journal of ..." while being located on another continent) or includes "International" in its title while having a single-country editorial board
12. The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal
13. The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)
14. The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)
15. The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
16. The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time
17. The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus
18. The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope
19. The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise
20. Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as "You have to respond within 48 h" while later on saying "You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient")
21. The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)
22. The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal's website
23. The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal's peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record
24. The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open-access journal
25. The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation

Memon's criteria

Scholar Aamir Raoof Memon proposed the following criteria of predatory publishing: ^[64]

1. The scope is too broad or inconsistent, e.g., it covers both biomedical and non-biomedical topics, irrespective of the title of the journal. They publish special issues on topics that are clearly outside the scope of the journal.
2. They accept all submitted papers and pretend to have a peer review process.
3. They are not affiliated with any reputable organization or university.
4. The published papers are of poor quality because they have never been peer-reviewed or edited. In most of the cases, they publish a large number of papers per issue.
5. They invite researchers to submit manuscripts with expertise in fields that are clearly outside the scope of the journal.
6. They state false or misleading information about their indexing service(s) and/or are indexed in irrelevant agencies or not indexed in relevant databases.
7. They falsify the information about their impact factors or similar metrics. Most of these journals claim to have an impact factor, despite being too new to have one.
8. They state false or misleading information about its editorial board.
9. They state false or misleading information about the costs involved in publishing with them or authors are surprised to discover hidden fees.
10. They are not monitored by or member of a regional or international organization.
11. They have no information about the strategy for handling misconduct (such as plagiarism, salami slicing, or a retraction policy).
12. The website is either not up-to-date or lacks important information about submission requirements and manuscript processing and reviewing.
13. The manuscripts are submitted through the email of the journal or directly on the journal's website.
14. They do not usually mention the contact details. There is also false or misleading information about the location of the journal.

Policies of leading scholar databases

Many scientific abstract and citation databases implemented policies to identify and combat predatory journals. For example, Scopus automatically flags a journal that is an outlier in two consecutive years according to any of three criteria comparing it with peer journals in its subject field ^[65]

• Substantially higher self-citation rate
• Substantially lower number of citation
• Substantially lower CiteScore

Web of Science implemented somewhat similar criteria, although they do not specify any quantitative metrics. Also, Web of Science (unlike Scopus) checks for excessive citations of the works authored by the journal board members. ^[66]

As of summer 2024 SciFinder (and Chemical Abstract Service) do not have a publicly disclosed policy on predatory journals. ^[67]

Growth and structure

A study in 2015 found that predatory journals rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in 2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active journals. ^{[29] [68]} Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since 2012 publishers in the 10–99 journal size category have captured the largest market share. As of 2022, almost one third of the 100 largest publishers (by journal count) could be deemed predatory. ^[69] The regional distribution of both the publisher's country and authorship is highly skewed, with three-quarters of the authors from Asia or Africa. ^[29] Authors paid an average fee of US $178 each for articles to be published rapidly without review, typically within two to three months of submission. ^[29] As reported in 2019, some 5% of Italian researchers have published in predatory journals, with a third of those journals engaging in fraudulent editorial practices. ^[70]

Causes and impact

The root cause of exploitative practices is the author-facing article-processing charge (APC) business model, in which authors are charged to publish rather than to read. ^[71] Such a model provides incentives for publishers to focus on the quantity of articles published, rather than their quality. APCs have gained increasing popularity in the last two decades as a business model for OA, due to the guaranteed revenue streams they offer, as well as a lack of competitive pricing within the OA market, which allows vendors full control over how much they choose to charge. ^[72]

Ultimately, quality control relies on good editorial policies and their enforcement, and the conflict between rigorous scholarship and profit can be successfully managed by selecting which articles are published purely based on (peer-reviewed) methodological quality. ^[73] Most OA publishers ensure their quality by registering their titles in the Directory of Open Access Journals and complying with a standardised set of conditions. ^[74]

The majority of predatory OA publishers appear to be based in Asia and Africa, but in one study over half of authors publishing in them were found to be from "higher-income or upper-middle-income countries". ^{[75] [76] [77]} It has been argued that authors who publish in predatory journals may do so unwittingly without actual unethical perspective, due to concerns that North American and European journals might be prejudiced against scholars from non-Western countries, high publication pressure or lack of research proficiency. ^{[11] [78]} Hence predatory publishing also questions the geopolitical and commercial context of scholarly knowledge production. Early career researchers are particularly vulnerable to predatory publishing, as they often face pressure to publish quickly to establish their academic careers. This, coupled with a lack of awareness of predatory practices, makes them more susceptible to exploitative publishers. ^[79] Nigerian researchers, for example, publish in predatory journals due to the pressure to publish internationally while having little to no access to Western international journals, or due to the often higher APCs practiced by mainstream OA journals. ^[80] More generally, the criteria adopted by high JIF journals, including the quality of the English language, the composition of the editorial board or the rigour of the peer review process itself tend to favour familiar content from the "centre" rather than the "periphery". ^[81] It is thus important to distinguish between exploitative publishers and journals – whether OA or not – and legitimate OA initiatives with varying standards in digital publishing, but which may improve and disseminate epistemic contents. ^[82]

Response

Blacklists

Lists of journals or publishers deemed either acceptable or unacceptable have been published. Beall's List was an example of a free blacklist, and Cabells' Predatory Reports is an example of a paid blacklist database. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommends against blindly trusting any list of fake or predatory journals, especially if they do not publish the criteria by which journals are evaluated. ^[83] Some lists of purported predatory publishers have been criticized for being based on the authors' personal judgement, rather than objective evidence. ^{[84] [85]}

Lists of acceptable sources, on the other hand, have been criticized as not being relevant to how academics evaluate journals. ^[86] Directory of Open Access Journals is an example of a free whitelist. Other lists of pre-approved journals are available from large research funders.

Beall's List

Main article: Beall's List

Jeffrey Beall

University of Colorado Denver librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall, who coined the term "predatory publishing", first published his list of predatory publishers in 2010. ^[51] Beall's list of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers attempted to identify scholarly open-access publishers with questionable practices. ^[87] In 2013, Nature reported that Beall's list and web site were "widely read by librarians, researchers, and open-access advocates, many of whom applaud his efforts to reveal shady publishing practices." ^[51] Others have raised the objection that "(w)hether it's fair to classify all these journals and publishers as 'predatory' is an open question—several shades of gray may be distinguishable." ^[88]

Beall's analyses have been called sweeping generalizations with no supporting evidence, ^[89] and he has also been criticized for being biased against open-access journals from less economically developed countries. ^[90] A 2018 study has shown that Beall's criteria of "predatory" publishing were in no way limited to OA publishers and that, applying them to both OA and non-OA journals in the field of library and information science, even top tier non-OA journals could be qualified as predatory. ^[91] Similarly, another study reported on the difficulties of demarcating predatory and non-predatory journals in biomedicine. ^[92] One librarian wrote that Beall's list "attempts a binary division of this complex gold rush: the good and the bad. Yet many of the criteria used are either impossible to quantify..., or can be found to apply as often to established OA journals as to the new entrants in this area... Some of the criteria seem to make First World assumptions that aren't valid worldwide." ^[93] Beall differed with these opinions and wrote a letter of rebuttal in mid-2015. ^[94]

Following the Who's Afraid of Peer Review? investigation, the DOAJ has tightened up its inclusion criteria, with the purpose of serving as a whitelist, very much like Beall's has been a blacklist. ^[95] The investigation found that "the results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control." ^[32] However, the managing director of DOAJ, Lars Bjørnshauge, estimates that questionable publishing probably accounts for fewer than 1% of all author-pays, open-access papers, a proportion far lower than Beall's estimate of 5–10%. Instead of relying on blacklists, Bjørnshauge argues that open-access associations such as the DOAJ and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association should adopt more responsibility for policing publishers: they should lay out a set of criteria that publishers and journals must comply with to win a place on a 'white list' indicating that they are trustworthy. ^[51]

Beall has been threatened with a lawsuit by a Canadian publisher which appears on the list. He reports that he has been the subject of online harassment for his work on the subject. His list has been criticized ^[96] for relying heavily on analysis of publishers' web sites, not engaging directly with publishers, and including newly founded but legitimate journals. Beall has responded to these complaints by posting the criteria he uses to generate the list, as well as instituting an anonymous three-person review body to which publishers can appeal to be removed from the list. ^[51] For example, a 2010 re-evaluation resulted in some journals being removed from Beall's list. ^[51]

In 2013, the OMICS Publishing Group threatened to sue Beall for $1 billion for his "ridiculous, baseless, [and] impertinent" inclusion of them on his list, which "smacks of literal unprofessionalism and arrogance". ^[97] An unedited sentence from the letter read: "Let us at the outset warn you that this is a very perilous journey for you and you will be completely exposing yourself to serious legal implications including criminal cases lunched [ sic ] against you in INDIA and USA." ^[98] Beall responded that the letter was "poorly written and personally threatening" and expressed his opinion that the letter "is an attempt to detract from the enormity of OMICS's editorial practices". ^[99] OMICS' lawyers stated that damages were being pursued under section 66A of India's Information Technology Act, 2000, which makes it illegal to use a computer to publish "any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or to publish false information. ^[100] The letter stated that three years in prison was a possible penalty, although a U.S. lawyer said that the threats seemed to be a "publicity stunt" that was meant to "intimidate". ^[97] Section 66A has been criticised in an India Today editorial for its potential for misuse in "stifling political dissent, crushing speech and ... enabling bullying". ^[100] Beall could have been sued for defamation, and would not have been able to fall back on truth as a final defense; under section 66A, the truth of any information is irrelevant if it is grossly offensive. ^[100]

In an unrelated case in 2015, Section 66A was struck down by the Supreme Court of India, which found that it had no proximate connection to public order, "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech", and that the description of offences is "open-ended, undefined and vague." ^[101] As such, it is not possible for the OMICS Group to proceed against Beall under section 66A, but it could mount a defamation case. Finally, in August 2016, OMICS was sued for "deceptive business practices related to journal publishing and scientific conferences" by the Federal Trade Commission (a US government agency), who won an initial court ruling in November 2017. ^[102]

Beall's list was used as an authoritative source by South Africa's Department of Higher Education and Training in maintaining its list of accredited journals: articles published in those journals will determine funding levels for their authors; however, journals identified as predatory will be removed from this list. ^[103] ProQuest is reviewing all journals on Beall's list, and has started removing them from the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences. ^[103]

In January 2017, Beall shut down his blog and removed all its content, citing pressure from his employer. ^[104] Beall's supervisor wrote a response stating that he did not pressure Beall to discontinue his work, or threaten his employment; and had tried hard to support Beall's academic freedom. ^[105]

In 2017, Ramzi Hakami reported on his own successful attempt to get an intentionally poor paper accepted by a publisher on the list and referenced a resurrected version of Beall's list. This version includes Beall's original list and updates by an anonymous purported "postdoctoral researcher in one of the [E]uropean universities [who has] a hands-on experience with predatory journals." ^{[106] [107]}

Cabells' Predatory Reports

Main article: Cabells' Predatory Reports

At the May 2017 meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, Cabell's International, a company that offers scholarly publishing analytics and other scholarly services, announced that it intended to launch a blacklist of predatory journals (not publishers) in June, and said that access would be by subscription only. ^[26] The company had started work on its blacklist criteria in early 2016. ^[108] In July 2017, both a black list and a white list were offered for subscription on their website. ^[108]

Scholarly Criticism

In December 2023, a portal titled "Scholarly Criticism" was launched by a few Malaysian and US based research scholars in response to false and erroneous research published by so-called top-tier business journals. The presented criticism significantly provides evidence of little, no, or nescient peer review conducted by journals' editors and publishers. ^[109] The portal also provides a list of questionable journals analyzed by the editors of the portal. ^[110] The founders of the portal get inspiration from the commentary authored by Ch. Mahmood Anwar titled "Emergence of false realities about the concept of “Silaturrahim”: an academic social construction perspective". The commentary was published in Tourism Critiques back in 2022. In this commentary, the author floated very important concepts of false information reporting, academic social artifacts, academic social construction, false citation chains, and other related concepts. ^[111]

Other blacklists

See also: Beall's List § Successors

Since Beall's list closed, other list groups have started. ^{[112] [113]} These include Kscien's list, ^{[114] [115]} which used Beall's list as a starting point, updating it to add and remove publishers.

In 2020 Ministry of Science and Technology of China ordered Chinese Center of Scientometrics to launch a blacklist called Chinese Early Warning Journal List (EWJL). EWJL classifies journals into three grades: low, medium or high risk, rather than two (predatory or not) like most other lists. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing criticism of this list as well. ^[116]

According to a 2020 systematic review of 93 lists, only three ^{[117] [118] [119]} were assessed as evidence-based. ^[85]

Science funders

Multiple science funders have taken special measures against predatory publishing, especially in terms of national journal rankings.

Poland

On 18 September 2018, Zbigniew Błocki, the director of the National Science Centre, the largest agency that funds fundamental research in Poland, stated that if articles financed by NCN funds were published in journals not satisfying standards for peer review, then the grant numbers would have to be removed from the publications and funds would have to be returned to the NCN. ^[120]

Russia

Both the Russian Science Foundation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research require their grant recipients to publish only in the journals included into either Web of Science or Scopus databases. ^[121] This policy aims at (1) preventing the researchers from falling into the traps of predatory publishers, without having the Foundations to issue their own lists of acceptable journals; (2) making sure that the results of their funded works are readily discovered by other people, as Web of Science and Scopus are subscribed to by most reputable institutions. However, in parallel with the withdrawal of Clarivate from Russia in 2022 and the pause in Elsevier services from 2022 onwards, the Web of Science and Scopus listings are no longer considered as essential by the Russian agencies. ^[122]

Other efforts

Campaign Think. Check. Submit.

More transparent peer review, such as open peer review and post-publication peer review, has been advocated to combat predatory journals. ^{[123] [124]} Others have argued instead that the discussion on predatory journals should not be turned "into a debate over the shortcomings of peer review—it is nothing of the sort. It is about fraud, deception, and irresponsibility..." ^[125]

In an effort to "set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate ones", principles of transparency and best practice have been identified and issued collectively by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors. ^[126] Various journal review websites (crowd-sourced or expert-run) have been started, some focusing on the quality of the peer review process and extending to non-OA publications. ^{[127] [128]} A group of libraries and publishers launched an awareness campaign. ^{[129] [130]}

A number of measures have been suggested to further combat predatory journals. Others have called on research institutions to improve the publication literacy notably among junior researchers in developing countries. ^[131] Some organisations have also developed criteria in which predatory publishers could be spotted through providing tips. ^[132]

As Beall has ascribed predatory publishing to a consequence of gold open access (particularly its author-pays variant), ^[133] one researcher has argued for platinum open access, where the absence of article processing charges removes the publisher's conflict of interest in accepting article submissions. ^[134] More objective discriminating metrics ^[135] have been proposed, such as a "predatory score" ^[136] and positive and negative journal quality indicators. ^[137] The International Academy of Nursing Editors (INANE) have encouraged authors to consult subject-area expert-reviewed journal listings, such as the Directory of Nursing Journals, vetted by their organisation, and to make use of Jeffrey Beall's open-access list of predatory journals. ^[138]

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has warned that predatory publishing, fabricated data, and academic plagiarism erodes public confidence in the medical profession, devalues legitimate science, and undermines public support for evidence-based policy. ^[139]

In 2015, Rick Anderson, associate dean in the J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah, challenged the term itself: "what do we mean when we say 'predatory,' and is that term even still useful?... This question has become relevant because of that common refrain heard among Beall's critics: that he only examines one kind of predation—the kind that naturally crops up in the context of author-pays OA." Anderson suggests that the term "predatory" be retired in the context of scholarly publishing. "It's a nice, attention-grabbing word, but I'm not sure it's helpfully descriptive... it generates more heat than light." ^[140] A 2017 article in The New York Times suggests that a significant number of academics are "eager" to publish their work in these journals, making the relationship more a "new and ugly symbiosis" than a case of scholars being exploited by "predators". ^[8]

Similarly, a study published in January 2018 found that "Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to 'publish or perish' was another factor influencing many scholars' decisions to publish in these fast-turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal." ^[11]

In May 2018, the University Grants Commission in India removed 4,305 dubious journals from a list of publications used for evaluating academic performance. ^{[141] [142] [143]}

To further define and distinguish predatory journals, Leonhard Dobusch and Maximilian Heimstädt in 2019 proposed a tripartite classification of Open Access journals with below-average peer review quality. ^[144] Based on their procedures, there would be 1) "aspirant" 2) "junk" and 3) "fake" journals. While aspirant journals are science-oriented despite their below-average peer review (e.g. student-run journals), junk and fake journals are predominantly or exclusively profit-oriented. Junk and fake Open Access journals have superficial or no peer review procedures, despite their claims of being peer-reviewed.

In April 2019, 43 participants from 10 countries met in Ottawa, Canada to formulate a consensus definition: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” ^[145] Adequacy of peer review was not included in the definition because this factor was deemed too subjective to evaluate. ^[145] Critics of this definition argued that excluding the quality of peer review from the definition "could strengthen rather than weaken" predatory journals. ^[146]

In March 2022, the InterAcademy Partnership published a report, Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences, with a series of recommendations. ^[147] This study emphasized, that predatory publishing practices is not a binary (good or bad) phenomenon, but rather a spectrum. They proposed the following classification:

a) hijacked journals, which mimic existing reputable journals; ^[148]

b) journals which re-publish papers from legitimate journals (see OMICS);

c) journals which deceive their potential authors by "giving false or misleading information about their publishing charges, the services they provide (like indexing, peer-review, or having an impact factor), where the publisher is based, or the identity of the owner, editor or members of the editorial board."

d) low-quality journals, which are characterised by poor cumulative criteria (such as disregarding negative reviews of manuscripts and publishing articles outside the declared journal's scope), without an apparent deceitful intent (see MDPI).

Some journals can be simultaneously classified into two or more categories.

See also

• List of scholarly publishing stings
• Author mill
• Conflicts of interest in academic publishing (covers publishers' COIs)
• Content farm
• Diploma mill
• Elsevier § Fake journals
• Essay mill
• Hijacked journal
• Journalology
• Mega journal
• Open-access journal
• Peer review failures
• Predatory conference
• Pseudo-scholarship
• Center for Promoting Ideas

Explanatory notes

1. Gina Kolata (The New York Times, 30 October 2017): "These publications often are called predatory journals, on the assumption that well-meaning academics are duped into working with them – tricked by flattering emails from the journals inviting them to submit a paper or fooled by a name that sounded like a journal they knew.
   "But it's increasingly clear that many academics know exactly what they're getting into, which explains why these journals have proliferated despite wide criticism. The relationship is less predator and prey, some experts say, than a new and ugly symbiosis." ^[8]

References

1. Bogost, Ian (24 November 2008). "Write-Only Publication".
2. Riehle, Dirk (13 September 2011). "Definition of Write-Only Journal".
3. Anderson, Rick (19 March 2019). "OSI Brief: Deceptive publishing".
4. Grudniewicz; et al. (11 December 2019). "Predatory journals: no definition, no defence". Nature. 576 (7786): 210–212. Bibcode:2019Natur.576..210G. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y. PMID   31827288.
5. Beall, Jeffrey (2012). "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access". Nature. 489 (7415): 179. Bibcode:2012Natur.489..179B. doi: 10.1038/489179a . PMID   22972258. S2CID   659746.
6. Björk, Bo-Christer; Solomon, David (2012). "Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact". BMC Medicine. 10: 73. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-73 . PMC   3398850 . PMID   22805105.
7. Krawczyk, Franciszek; Kulczycki, Emanuel (2021). "How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing". The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 47 (2): 102271. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271 . S2CID   228863095.
8. Kolata, Gina (30 October 2017). "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals" Archived 5 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine , The New York Times.
9. Kearney, Margaret H. (2015). "Predatory Publishing: What Authors Need to Know". Research in Nursing & Health . 38 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1002/nur.21640. PMID   25545343.
10. Xia, Jingfeng; Harmon, Jennifer L.; Connolly, Kevin G.; Donnelly, Ryan M.; Anderson, Mary R.; Howard, Heather A. (2014). "Who publishes in "predatory" journals?". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology . 66 (7): 1406–1417. doi:10.1002/asi.23265. hdl: 1805/9740 . S2CID   40929915.
11. Kurt, Serhat (2018). "Why do authors publish in predatory journals?". Learned Publishing. 31 (2): 141–7. doi: 10.1002/leap.1150 . S2CID   19132351.
12. "Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences (Full Report in English)". 15 March 2022.
13. Brainard J (2020). "Articles in 'predatory' journals receive few or no citations". Science . 367 (6474): 129. Bibcode:2020Sci...367..129B. doi:10.1126/science.aba8116. PMID   31919198. S2CID   241194758.
14. Björk, Bo-Christer; Kanto-Karvonen, Sari; Harviainen, J. Tuomas (2020). "How Frequently are Articles in Predatory Open Access Journals Cited". Publications. 8 (2): 17. arXiv: 1912.10228 . doi: 10.3390/publications8020017 . S2CID   209444511.
15. "The guardians of Scopus".
16. Eysenbach, Gunther. "Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers". Random Research Rants.
17. Poynder, Richard (5 November 2008). "The Open Access Interviews: Dove Medical Press". Open and Shut?. Retrieved 13 April 2016. For the series of interviews, see The Open Access Interviews Archived 1 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine index page.
18. Suber, Peter (2 October 2009). "Ten challenges for open-access journals". SPARC Open Access Newsletter . No. 138.
19. Beall, Jeffrey (2009), "Bentham Open", The Charleston Advisor , Volume 11, Number 1, July 2009, pp. 29–32(4)
20. Eysenbach, Gunther. Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers. Gunther Eysenbach Random Research Rants Blog. Originally posted 2008-03-08, updated (postscript added) 2008-04-21, 2008-04-23, 3 June 2008. Archived 29 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine . Retrieved 2008-06-03. (Archived by WebCite at )
21. Abrahams, Marc (22 December 2009). "Strange academic journals: Scam?". Improbable Research . Retrieved 13 January 2015.
22. Sanderson, Katharine (13 January 2010). "Two new journals copy the old". Nature News . 463 (7278): 148. doi: 10.1038/463148a . PMID   20075892. S2CID   205052409.
23. Basken, Paul (10 June 2009). "Open-Access Publisher Appears to Have Accepted Fake Paper From Bogus Center". The Chronicle of Higher Education .
24. McCook, Alison (26 August 2016). "U.S. government agency sues publisher, charging it with deceiving researchers". Retraction Watch . Retrieved 2 November 2016.
25. Molteni, Megan (19 September 2016). "The FTC is Cracking Down on Predatory Science Journals". Wired . Retrieved 2 November 2016.
26. Silver, Andrew (31 May 2017). "Pay-to-view blacklist of predatory journals set to launch". Nature: nature.2017.22090. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22090.
27. Djuric, Dragan (2015). "Penetrating the Omerta of Predatory Publishing: The Romanian Connection". Science and Engineering Ethics. 21 (1): 183–202. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9521-4. PMID   24488723. S2CID   10632560.
28. Strinzel, Michaela; Severin, Anna; Milzow, Katrin; Egger, Matthias (2019). "'Blacklists" and 'Whitelists" to Tackle Predatory Publishing : A Cross-Sectional Comparison and Thematic Analysis". mBio. 10 (3). doi:10.1128/mBio.00411-19. PMC   6550518 . PMID   31164459.
29. Shen, Cenyu; Björk, Bo-Christer (October 2015). "'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics". BMC Medicine. 13 (1): 230. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2 . PMC   4589914 . PMID   26423063.
30. Perlin, Marcelo S.; Imasato, Takeyoshi; Borenstein, Denis (2018). "Is Predatory Publishing a Real Threat? Evidence from a Large Database Study". Scientometrics. 116: 255–273. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6. hdl: 10183/182710 . S2CID   4998464.
31. Van Noorden, Richard (11 March 2020). "Hundreds of scientists have peer-reviewed for predatory journals". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-00709-x. PMID   32161349. S2CID   212678115.
32. Bohannon, John (4 October 2013). "Who's afraid of peer review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. doi:10.1126/science.2013.342.6154.342_60. PMID   24092725.
33. Sorokowski, Piotr (22 March 2017). "Predatory journals recruit fake editor". Nature. 543 (7646): 481–483. Bibcode:2017Natur.543..481S. doi: 10.1038/543481a . PMID   28332542. S2CID   4461507.
34. Kluger, Jeffrey (22 March 2017). "Dozens of Scientific Journals Offered Her a Job. But She Didn't Exist". Time. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
35. Kolata, Gina (22 March 2017). "A Scholarly Sting Operation Shines a Light on 'Predatory' Journals". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
36. Burdick, Alan (22 March 2017). ""Paging Dr. Fraud": The Fake Publishers That Are Ruining Science". The New Yorker. Retrieved 22 March 2017.
37. Connor-Simons, Adam (14 April 2015). "How three MIT students fooled the world of scientific journals". MIT News . Retrieved 28 June 2023.
38. Hern, Alex; Duncan, Pamela (10 August 2018). "Predatory publishers: the journals that churn out fake science". The Guardian . Retrieved 28 June 2023.
39. "FTC sues OMICS group: Are predatory publishers' days numbered?". STAT. 2 September 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
40. Shanka, David. "COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF" (PDF). Case 2:16-cv-02022. United States District Court Nevada. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
41. "Federal Trade Commission begins to crack down on 'predatory' publishers". 29 August 2016. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
42. "Enforcement » Cases and Proceedings » OMICS Group Inc". No. FTC MATTER/FILE NUMBER: 152 3113. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 15 October 2019.
43. Timmer, John (3 April 2019). "FTC hits predatory scientific publisher with a $50 million fine". Ars Technica . Condé Nast Digital . Retrieved 3 April 2019.
44. Oransky, Ivan (2 April 2019). "Court orders publisher OMICS to pay U.S. gov't $50 million in suit alleging "unfair and deceptive practices"". Retraction Watch . Retrieved 3 April 2019.
45. Manley, Stewart (23 July 2019). "On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci-Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University". Learned Publishing. 32 (4): 375–381. doi:10.1002/leap.1254. S2CID   199579561.
46. Leonard, Michelle; Stapleton, Suzanne; Collins, Perry; Selfe, Terry Kit; Cataldo, Tara (23 September 2021). "Ten simple rules for avoiding predatory publishing scams". PLOS Computational Biology. 17 (9): e1009377. Bibcode:2021PLSCB..17E9377L. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009377 . PMC   8459944 . PMID   34555017.
47. Stratford, Michael (4 March 2012). "'Predatory' Online Journals Lure Scholars Who Are Eager to Publish". The Chronicle of Higher Education .(subscription required)
48. Gilbert, Natasha (15 June 2009). "Editor will quit over hoax paper". Nature . doi:10.1038/news.2009.571.
49. Safi, Michael (25 November 2014), "Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list", The Guardian
50. Memon, Aamir Raoof (2019). "Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing". Journal of Korean Medical Science. 34 (13): e99. doi:10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99. PMC   6449603 . PMID   30950249.
51. Butler, Declan (March 2013). "Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing". Nature. 495 (7442): 433–435. Bibcode:2013Natur.495..433B. doi: 10.1038/495433a . PMID   23538810. S2CID   4425229.
52. Elliott, Carl (5 June 2012). "On Predatory Publishers: a Q&A With Jeffrey Beall". Brainstorm. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 8 February 2014.
53. Beall, Jeffrey (1 August 2012). "Predatory Publishing". The Scientist .
54. Kolata, Gina (7 April 2013). "For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia". The New York Times .
55. Neumann, Ralf (2 February 2012). ""Junk Journals" und die "Peter-Panne"". Laborjournal (in German).
56. Brezgov, Stef (3 June 2019). "Bogus New Impact Factor Appears". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 2 April 2023. Retrieved 2 April 2023.
57. Jalalian, Mehrdad (August 2013). "New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations". Electronic Physician. 5 (3): 685–686. doi:10.14661/2013.685-686. PMC   4477750 . PMID   26120403.
58. "Don't get fooled of Journal's "Indexed in" information". SAR Publisher. 2 March 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
59. "Predatory publishing: Favoritism and self-promotion pollute peer review". Big Think. 2 January 2022. Retrieved 16 February 2022.
60. "Predatory Publishing: The Dark Side of the Open-Access Movement". ASH Clinical News. January 2017.
61. Brown, Michael J. I. (2 August 2015). "Vanity and predatory academic publishers are corrupting the pursuit of knowledge". The Conversation.
62. Beall, Jeffrey (1 January 2015). "Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers" (PDF). Beall's list (3rd ed.). Retrieved 13 February 2019.
63. Eriksson, Stefan; Helgesson, Gert (7 October 2016). "The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 20 (2): 163–170. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3. PMC   5487745 . PMID   27718131.
64. Memon, Aamir Raoof (2019). "Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing". Journal of Korean Medical Science. 34 (13): e99. doi:10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99. PMC   6449603 . PMID   30950249.
65. "Scopus content policy and selection | Elsevier".
66. "Supporting integrity of the scholarly record: Our commitment to curation and selectivity in the Web of Science". 20 March 2023.
67. "Common Misconceptions about Open Access". The ACS Guide to Scholarly Communication. 2020. doi:10.1021/acsguide.10506. ISBN   978-0-8412-3586-1.
68. Carl Straumsheim (October 2015). "Study finds huge increase in articles published by 'predatory' journals". Archived from the original on 4 February 2016. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
69. Nishikawa-Pacher, Andreas (21 September 2022). "Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach". Journal of Documentation. 78 (7): 450–463. doi: 10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083 . S2CID   252711399.
70. Bagues, Manuel; Sylos-Labini, Mauro; Zinovyeva, Natalia (March 2019). "A walk on the wild side: 'Predatory' journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations" (PDF). Research Policy. 48 (2): 462–477. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.04.013. S2CID   53610521.
71. Eve, Martin Paul (2015). "Co-Operating for Gold Open Access without APCs". Insights: The UKSG Journal. 28: 73–77. doi: 10.1629/uksg.166 .
72. "Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges" (PDF).
73. Vanholsbeeck, Marc; Thacker, Paul; Sattler, Susanne; et al. (11 March 2019). "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing". Publications. 7 (2): 34. doi: 10.3390/publications7020034 .
74. "Directory of Open Access Journals". doaj.org.
75. Oermann, Marilyn H.; Conklin, Jamie L.; Nicoll, Leslie H.; Chinn, Peggy L.; Ashton, Kathleen S.; Edie, Alison H.; Amarasekara, Sathya; Budinger, Susan C. (2016). "Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals". Journal of Nursing Scholarship . 48 (6): 624–632. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12248 . PMID   27706886.
76. Oermann, Marilyn H.; Nicoll, Leslie H.; Chinn, Peggy L.; et al. (2018). "Quality of Articles Published in Predatory Nursing Journals". Nursing Outlook . 66 (1): 4–10. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2017.05.005. PMID   28641868.
77. Moher, David; Shamseer, Larissa; Cobey, Kelly D.; et al. (September 2017). "Stop this waste of people, animals and money". Nature. 549 (7670): 23–25. Bibcode:2017Natur.549...23M. doi: 10.1038/549023a . PMID   28880300. S2CID   4387171.
78. Frandsen, Tove Faber (January 2019). "Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature: Why authors publish in questionable journals". Learned Publishing. 32 (1): 57–62. doi:10.1002/leap.1214. S2CID   67869257.
79. Rajakumar, Hamrish Kumar (25 November 2024). "Seductive emails, dangerous consequences: how predatory journals, conferences, and publishers target early-career researchers". Postgraduate Medical Journal: qgae167. doi:10.1093/postmj/qgae167. ISSN   0032-5473.
80. Omobowale, Ayokunle Olumuyiwa; Akanle, Olayinka; Adeniran, Adebusuyi Isaac; Adegboyega, Kamorudeen (2014). "Peripheral Scholarship and the Context of Foreign Paid Publishing in Nigeria". Current Sociology. 62 (5): 666–684. doi:10.1177/0011392113508127. S2CID   147072232.
81. Bell, Kirsten (8 July 2017). "'Predatory' Open Access Journals as Parody: Exposing the Limitations of 'Legitimate' Academic Publishing". TripleC. 15 (2): 651–662. doi: 10.31269/triplec.v15i2.870 .
82. Nwagwu, W.E. (2016). "Open Access in the Developing Regions: Situating the Altercations About Predatory Publishing". Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science. 40 (1): 58–80. Project MUSE   611577.
83. "Identifying fake journals". COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. 6 April 2023. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
84. Kendall, Graham; Linacre, Simon (September 2022). "Predatory Journals: Revisiting Beall's Research". Publishing Research Quarterly. 38 (3): 530–543. doi:10.1007/s12109-022-09888-z. ISSN   1053-8801. S2CID   249050948. One of the Associate Editors of Frontiers remarked 'Frontiers being added to Beall's list reveals the big weakness of Beall's list: It's not based on solid data but on Beall's intuition.'
85. Cukier, Samantha; Helal, Lucas; Rice, Danielle B.; et al. (18 May 2020). "Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review". BMC Medicine. 18 (1): 104. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01566-1 . PMC   7203891 . PMID   32375818.
86. Van Noorden, Richard (1 August 2014). "Open-access website gets tough". Nature. 512 (7512): 17. Bibcode:2014Natur.512...17V. doi:10.1038/512017a. ISSN   1476-4687. PMID   25100463. Moreover, Beall points out, many researchers and universities will instead judge a journal's quality by whether it is indexed in major citation databases, such as Elsevier's Scopus index, rather than looking at the DOAJ's list.
87. Beall, Jeffrey. "List of Publishers". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 6 March 2015. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
88. Haug, C. (2013). "The Downside of Open-Access Publishing". New England Journal of Medicine . 368 (9): 791–793. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1214750. PMID   23445091. S2CID   205109253.
89. Bivens-Tatum, Wayne (2014). "Reactionary Rhetoric Against Open Access Publishing". tripleC . 12 (2): 441–446. doi: 10.31269/triplec.v12i2.617 .
90. Berger, Monica; Cirasella, Jill (March 2015). "Beyond Beall's List: Better understanding predatory publishers". College & Research Libraries News. 76 (3): 132–135. doi: 10.5860/crln.76.3.9277 .
91. Olivarez, Joseph; Bales, Stephen; Sare, Laura; Vanduinkerken, Wyoma (2018). "Format Aside: Applying Beall's Criteria to Assess the Predatory Nature of Both OA and Non-OA Library and Information Science Journals". College & Research Libraries. 79. doi: 10.5860/crl.79.1.52 .
92. Shamseer, Larissa; Moher, David; Maduekwe, Onyi; et al. (2017). "Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison". BMC Medicine. 15 (1): 28. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9 . PMC   5353955 . PMID   28298236.
93. Coyle, Karen (4 April 2013). "Predatory Publishers | Peer to Peer Review" . Library Journal.
94. Beall, Jeffrey (1 June 2015). "Response to 'Beyond Beall's List'". College & Research Libraries News. 76 (6): 340–341. doi: 10.5860/crln.76.6.9334 .
95. Van Noorden, R. (2014). "Open-access website gets tough". Nature. 512 (7512): 17. Bibcode:2014Natur.512...17V. doi: 10.1038/512017a . PMID   25100463. S2CID   4471110.
96. Walt Crawford, (July 2014), "Journals, 'Journals' and Wannabes: Investigating The List Archived 2014-10-31 at the Wayback Machine ", Cites & Insights , 14:7, ISSN   1534-0937
97. New, Jake (15 May 2013). "Publisher Threatens to Sue Blogger for $1-Billion". Chronicle of Higher Education . Retrieved 22 October 2016.
98. Anderson, Rick (20 May 2013). "High Noon – A Publisher Threatens to "Lunch" a Criminal Case Against Librarian Critic". Scholarly Kitchen . Retrieved 24 October 2016.
99. Chappell, Bill (15 May 2013). "Publisher Threatens Librarian With $1 Billion Lawsuit". NPR . Retrieved 2 October 2016.
100. Venkataramakrishnan, Rohan (19 May 2013). "Send Section 66A bullies home". India Today . Retrieved 24 October 2016.
101. Sriram, Jayant (25 March 2015). "SC strikes down 'draconian' Section 66A". The Hindu . Retrieved 24 October 2016.
102. Retraction Watch (22 November 2017). "US court issues injunction against OMICS to stop 'deceptive practices'". Retraction Watch. Archived from the original on 8 December 2017.
103. "Accredited Journals". Stellenbosch University.
104. Beall, Jeffrey (2017). "What I learned from predatory publishers". Biochemia Medica. 27 (2): 273–278. doi:10.11613/bm.2017.029. PMC   5493177 . PMID   28694718.
105. Swauger, Shea (4 December 2017). "Open access, power, and privilege: A response to 'What I learned from predatory publishing'". College & Research Libraries News. 78 (11): 603–606. doi: 10.5860/crln.78.11.603 .
106. Hakami, Ramzi (2017). "Predatory Journals: Write, Submit, and Publish the Next Day". Skeptical Inquirer . 41 (5): 32–33. Archived from the original on 15 August 2018.
107. "Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers". Archived from the original on 4 February 2019. Retrieved 15 August 2018.
108. Anderson, Rick (25 July 2017). "Cabell's New Predatory Journal Blacklist: A Review". The Scholarly Kitchen.
109. Criticism, Scholarly (26 December 2023). "Scholarly Criticism".
110. Criticism, Scholarly (26 December 2023). "List of Journals Publishing Questionable Research". The Scholarly Criticism.
111. Anwar, Ch. Mahmood (26 August 2022). "Emergence of false realities about the concept of "Silaturrahim": an academic social construction perspective". Tourism Critiques. 3: 88–97. doi: 10.1108/TRC-03-2022-0004 .
112. "The precarious prevalence of predatory journals". Research Matters. 28 January 2018. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
113. Siegfried, Elaine (16 June 2017). "Fake medical News". Dermatology Times. Archived from the original on 16 March 2018. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
114. Kakamad, Fahmi H.; Mohammed, Shvan H.; Najar, Kayhan A.; et al. (2020). "Kscien's list; a new strategy to discourage predatory journals and publishers". International Journal of Surgery Open. 23: 54–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijso.2019.11.001 . S2CID   211436381.
115. "Kscien's Predatory Lists". Kscien.org. 8 March 2015. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
116. Teixeira da Silva JA, Nazarovets S, Daly T, Kendall G. The Chinese Early Warning Journal List: Strengths, weaknesses and solutions in the light of China's global scientific rise. J Acad Librariansh. 2024;50(4) doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102898.
117. Hansoti, Bhakti; Langdorf, Mark I.; Murphy, Linda S. (2016). "Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee". The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 17 (5): 497–507. doi:10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328. PMC   5017830 . PMID   27625710.
118. Dadkhah, Mehdi; Bianciardi, Giorgio (2016). "Ranking Predatory Journals: Solve the Problem Instead of Removing It!". Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin. 6 (1): 1–4. doi:10.15171/apb.2016.001. PMC   4845555 . PMID   27123411.
119. Mouton, Johann; Valentine, Astrid (August 2017). "The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals". South African Journal of Science. 113 (7/8): 9. doi: 10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010 . ProQuest   1929693629.
120. Błocki, Zbigniew (18 September 2018). "(Letter from Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Błocki)" (PDF) (in Polish). The National Science Centre (Poland). Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2019. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
121. Sterligov, I. A.; Savina, T. F.; Chichkova, A. O. (January 2020). "A Study of Grant Support from Russian Scientific Foundations to Domestic Publications in Leading International Journals (based on Data from Scopus and Web of Science, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the Russian Science Foundation)". Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 47 (1): 36–55. doi:10.3103/S0147688220010074. S2CID   218682411.
122. "В России введен мораторий на показатели по публикациям ученых в зарубежных журналах" [Russia has introduced a moratorium on indicators based on publications of scientists in foreign journals]. Ведомости (in Russian). 21 March 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
123. Swoger, Bonnie (26 November 2014). "Is this peer reviewed? Predatory journals and the transparency of peer review". Scientific American . Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
124. Polka, Jessica K.; Kiley, Robert; Konforti, Boyana; Stern, Bodo; Vale, Ronald D. (2018). "Publish Peer Reviews". Nature. 560 (7720): 545–547. Bibcode:2018Natur.560..545P. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w. PMID   30158621. S2CID   52117898.
125. Bartholomew, R. E. (2014). "Science for sale: the rise of predatory journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . 107 (10): 384–385. doi:10.1177/0141076814548526. PMC   4206639 . PMID   25271271.
126. COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME (10 January 2014). "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing" (PDF). COPE. Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
127. Perkel, Jeffrey (30 March 2015). "Rate that journal". Nature. 520 (7545): 119–120. Bibcode:2015Natur.520..119P. doi: 10.1038/520119a . PMID   25832406. S2CID   4465549.
128. van Gerestein, Danielle (2015). "Quality Open Access Market and Other Initiatives: A Comparative Analysis". LIBER Quarterly. 24 (4): 162. doi: 10.18352/lq.9911 .
129. Benderly, Beryl Lieff (13 October 2015). "Avoiding fake journals and judging the work in real ones". Science. AAAS. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
130. Straumsheim, Carl (2 October 2015). "Awareness Campaign on 'Predatory' Publishing". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
131. Clark, J.; Smith, R. (2015). "Firm action needed on predatory journals". BMJ . 350: h210. doi:10.1136/bmj.h210. PMID   25596387. S2CID   46112714.
132. "Think. Check. Submit".
133. Beall, Jeffrey (1 April 2013). "Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 79–83. doi: 10.1087/20130203 . S2CID   12334948.
134. Cobo, Cristobal (17 November 2014). "(Gold) Open Access: the two sides of the coin". OII Blogs. University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 29 August 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
135. Beall, Jeffrey (1 April 2013). "Unethical Practices in Scholarly, Open-Access Publishing". Journal of Information Ethics. 22 (1): 11–20. doi:10.3172/jie.22.1.11.
136. Teixeira; da Silva, J. A. (2013). "How to better achieve integrity in science publishing". European Science Editing . 39 (4): 97. Archived from the original on 23 March 2016. Retrieved 24 January 2015.
137. Beaubien, Sarah; Eckard, Max (10 April 2014). "Addressing Faculty Publishing Concerns with Open Access Journal Quality Indicators". Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 2 (2). doi: 10.7710/2162-3309.1133 .
138. "Predatory Publishing". Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health. 59 (6): 569–571. November 2014. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12273 . PMID   25389116.
139. Caplan, Arthur L. (2015). "The Problem of Publication-Pollution Denialism". Mayo Clinic Proceedings . 90 (5): 565–566. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.02.017 . PMID   25847132.
140. Anderson, Rick (11 May 2015). "Should We Retire the Term 'Predatory Publishing'?". The Scholarly Kitchen . Society for Scholarly Publishing . Retrieved 14 June 2017.
141. "India culls 4,305 dubious journals from approved list". www.natureindex.com. 3 May 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2019.
142. S. Jayaraman, K. (23 March 2018). "India's UGC-approved list teeming with dubious journals". Nature India. doi:10.1038/nindia.2018.39 (inactive 1 November 2024).
143. "List of ICI Journal Titles Found to be not qualified" (PDF). University Grants Commission. Archived from the original on 27 March 2019.
144. Dobusch, Leonhard; Heimstädt, Maximilian (November 2019). "Predatory publishing in management research: A call for open peer review". Management Learning. 50 (5): 607–619. doi: 10.1177/1350507619878820 . S2CID   210443245.
145. Grudniewicz, Agnes; Moher, David; Cobey, Kelly D.; Bryson, Gregory L.; Cukier, Samantha; Allen, Kristiann; Ardern, Clare; Balcom, Lesley; Barros, Tiago; Berger, Monica; Ciro, Jairo Buitrago; Cugusi, Lucia; Donaldson, Michael R.; Egger, Matthias; Graham, Ian D.; Hodgkinson, Matt; Khan, Karim M.; Mabizela, Mahlubi; Manca, Andrea; Milzow, Katrin; Mouton, Johann; Muchenje, Marvelous; Olijhoek, Tom; Ommaya, Alexander; Patwardhan, Bhushan; Poff, Deborah; Proulx, Laurie; Rodger, Marc; Severin, Anna; Strinzel, Michaela; Sylos-Labini, Mauro; Tamblyn, Robyn; van Niekerk, Marthie; Wicherts, Jelte M.; Lalu, Manoj M. (12 December 2019). "Predatory journals: no definition, no defence". Nature. 576 (7786): 210–212. Bibcode:2019Natur.576..210G. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03759-y . hdl: 11584/281794 . PMID   31827288. S2CID   209168864.
146. Dobusch, Leonhard; Heimstädt, Maximilian; Mayer, Katja; Ross-Hellauer, Tony (2 April 2020). "Defining predatory journals: no peer review, no point". Nature. 580 (7801): 29. Bibcode:2020Natur.580...29D. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00911-x . PMID   32235937. S2CID   214715701.
147. Partnership (IAP), the InterAcademy (11 March 2022). "World academies call for concerted action to combat predatory journals and conferences". www.interacademies.org. Retrieved 30 December 2022.
148. Bohannon, John (19 November 2015). "Feature: How to hijack a journal". Science . Retrieved 26 September 2024.

Further reading

• Spears, Tom (14 June 2017). "Critic of 'predatory' publishing returns with scathing article". Ottawa Citizen. p. A3. Retrieved 26 December 2019– via Newspapers.com. Jeffrey Beall is back after he went silent and website disappeared around January
• Discussion document: Predatory Publishing (Report). Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 1 November 2019. doi: 10.24318/cope.2019.3.6 .
• InterAcademy Partnership (2022). Combatting predatory academic journals and conferences : report. [Washington, DC]. ISBN   978-1-7330379-3-8. OCLC   1304485975.

External links

• Think. Check. Submit.
• "Predatory journals: No definition, No defence. (2019). Nature. "Leading scholars and publishers from ten countries have agreed [on] a definition of predatory publishing that can protect scholarship."
• AMWA – EMWA – ISMPP Joint Position statement