Deceptive (predatory) journals

History of Open Access publishing

Before the 2000s, the main model of scientific publishing was subscription-based print journals whose primary source of revenue was institutional or individual subscriptions: the authors themselves had to pay only small charges. The aim of these journals was to establish sufficient prestige to maintain their subscription base and they achieved this by selecting high-quality and/or very innovative research papers. 

As the internet developed and the scientific community started realizing that online publication of articles both increased their visibility and their speed of dissemination, large mainstream publishers of subscription-based journals began to publish articles both online behind a paywall and in print. Then, in the 2000s, pressure to make scientific research freely accessible to the general public started mounting. This so-called Open Access movement led to the emergence of a brand-new scientific publishing model, namely, Open Access journals. There are several variations of this model: the gold Open Access model, where the author must pay several thousands of American dollars to retain the article copyright; the green Open Access model, which restricts the author's right of distribution to a third-party repository and generally involves an embargo period of 6-12 months; and hybrid models (e.g. authors can pay for open access in a subscription-based journal). 

Many subscription journals offer the hybrid option (because Open Access articles tend to be cited more often) and there are now also many well-known and reputable journals that publish via the gold Open Access model. They include PLOS One, which publishes around 30,000 papers every year. Some prestigious publishers (e.g. Nature Publishing Group and Elsevier) also have their own Open Access journals (e.g. Scientific Reports, Nature Communications).  

However, the fact that the revenue of gold Open Access journals comes from the author introduces a tremendous conflict of interest. Open Access journals must maintain high publication rates to survive (despite not having the high running and overhead costs of subscription journals) and are therefore under pressure to (i) solicit authors for papers, (ii) publish the papers as fast as possible, and (iii) publish as many articles as possible. This means that Open Access journals are highly focused on achieving a high publication acceptance rate, which may tempt them to drop their scientific standards, including the essential requirement to ensure rigorous peer review. 

Emergence of predatory journals and then the first whistleblowers

Human beings being what they are, this temptation has led to the shameless abuse of the Open Access model by predatory publishers and journals. These entities are only interested in profiting financially from the article processing charges that are levied on the authors. They achieve that by promising to provide proper peer review but actually provide none or just superficial peer review. They also provide little to no copy editing. They often:

  • have professional-looking websites
  • their name is exactly or almost exactly that of a reputable journal
  • they list an accredited editorial team (that sometimes falsely include unsuspecting established scientists)
  • they list a falsified Journal Impact Factor or a fake impact factor (e.g. Scientific Journal Impact Factor, Global Impact Factor, Universal Impact Factor)
  • falsely claim membership to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and indexation in well-reputed indexes like PubMed, Medline, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Web of Science.  

Jeffrey Beall, an American librarian, sounded the alarm about these journals in the late 2000s and started publishing an online blacklist of these journals in 2008 (Beall's List). In 2017, after being hounded to take down his list, he wrote: 

"What I learned from predatory publishers is that they consider money far more important than business ethics, research ethics, and publishing ethics and that these three pillars of scholarly publishing are easily sacrificed for profit. Soon after they first appeared, predatory publishers and journals became a godsend both for authors needing easy publishing outlets and sketchy entrepreneurs wanting to make easy money with little upfront investment."

John Bohannon was another who became concerned. In 2013, he sent 304 Open Access journals his "spoof" paper, which "should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless." But 57% of the journals accepted the article, including several belonging to prestigious publishers (Elsevier, Sage, and Wolters-Kluwe) and highly reputable institutions (Kobe University in Japan). Moreover, 45% of papers listed in the DOAJ accepted the spoof paper. Bohannon also found that in 83% of cases, no or only superficial peer review (i.e. it did not address scientific quality) was performed. It should be noted, however, that the Open Access pioneer PLOS One rejected the paper on the basis of its scientific merits and that 43% of the Open Access journals did reject the paper.

The size of the problem

Predatory journals are a huge and quickly growing problem: in 2015, 1000 predatory publishers were publishing 8000 active open access journals (one-quarter of all open access journals). In total, these journals have published 520,000 articles. This is the same size as the legitimate Open Access publishing industry. 

Who is targeted

Biomedicine is a major area and three-quarters of authors who publish in predatory journals are from developing countries in Asia and Africa (particularly India, Nigeria, and Turkey). However, there are also many authors from developed countries who publish in predatory journals: when Demir examined the 24,840 total articles published in 2017 by the 832 predatory journals that were active in 2018, s/he found that the USA, the UK, Japan, and South Korea were in the top 20 of 52 countries that published in predatory journals and were together responsible for 8% of the articles in these journals. 

Why are predatory journals successful?

Predatory journals thrive because of the pressure on researchers to publish. This pressure comes from the fact that funding bodies and many universities and other institutions rate scientists based on their publications. While most developed countries consider the impact of the papers (e.g. h-Index, altmetric score) as well as the number, developing countries tend to consider only the absolute number of publications. Some also provide cash bonuses for publishing a paper. 

The dangers of predatory publishing

By pretending to provide rigorous peer review but actually not providing any (or very little), predatory journals publish large numbers of poor quality papers, some of which may contain falsified or plagiarized material. This has a number of corrupting effects.

Poor scientific information will harm well-informed decision-making by physicians and others

There is evidence that articles published in predatory journals are regularly cited by legitimate medical literature. How can we trust a publishing system in which half of all Open Access journal articles have been published by nefarious journals with unethical publication practices? How can physicians, for example, make well-informed, reliable, trustworthy decisions in such a setting? 

Corruption of the whole research system

Beall stated in 2017:

"since the advent of predatory publishing, there have been tens of thousands of researchers who have earned Masters and Ph.D. degrees, been awarded other credentials and certifications, received tenure and promotion, and gotten employment – that they otherwise would not have been able to achieve – all because of the easy article acceptance that the pay-to-publish journals offer... Of course, this speaks to higher education institutions and employers’ use of journal articles as a measure of academic achievement. Both the academy and industry have been slow to understand predatory journals and to appreciate how severely they corrupt research communication, with many tenure committees and other academic committees using evaluation criteria drafted long before predatory journals – with their near-automatic acceptance of submitted manuscripts – appeared. Another reason that so many have been able to easily use predatory journals for academic credit is that it takes a lot of time and effort to effectively vet a list of publications... That is to say, looking at a list of publications on a vita, it is no longer possible to automatically assume that all the publications are legitimate. Any list of publications that one submits for academic credit or employment now must be carefully scrutinized." 

Increasing distrust towards medical and other experts by the community

Recent years have shown that there is a rapidly escalating distrust in the community about expert medical opinion. An example is vaccines: the false paper of Andrew Wakefield suggesting that the MMR vaccine causes autism continues to be cited by anti-vaccine groups, despite the fact that The Lancet retracted it years ago. That ongoing furor has recently led to countries like Italy abolishing mandatory vaccines and increasing outbreaks of measles on the European continent and elsewhere.

Thus, predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of scientific research and it is essential that scientists and physicians become aware of this problem.

How can we tackle predatory journals?

1. There are a number of Blacklists and Whitelists that respectively list predatory journals and list journals that do not have predatory publishing practices but they are not perfect.

2. The best approach is probably to educate ourselves about what predatory journals look like. RX Communications lists 6 ways to spot predatory journals.

  • Always check the website carefully: often, a tell-tale sign of a predatory journal is the mistakes in both spelling and grammar on their website. Poor use of language shows a low professional standard. The journals’ fees should be clearly stated on the website and should only be requested from the author after the article has been accepted for publication. If a journal requests a submission fee before the article is accepted, this may be a predatory journal.
  • Check that they really are a member of DOAJ, COPE, OASPA, or STM: If they advertise membership to the Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) or International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), check their membership on the relevant website. These associations are all reputable organisations that vet their members for adherence to publishing standards. If in doubt, send an email to the organisation, and they should be able to confirm or deny membership. 
  • Check the journal's contact information: It is important to ensure there is verifiable contact information that matches the advertised nationality of the journal. Often predatory journals state that their offices are in one country, whereas the contact details will be in another. Check that the time-stamps of incoming emails are during working hours of the country of origin, ensure the phone number has the correct country-code, and if they provide an address, search for it! 
  • Research the editorial board: One way to look credible is to list experts in the field as members of the editorial board. Often predatory journals will create fake scholars or they will list scholars without their permission. One way to know for sure, is to check the professional online profiles of named individuals through their listed institution page, LinkedIn or Research Gate. If there is no mention of the journal they are are supposed to be editors of, be wary. 
  • Look at their peer review process and publication timelines: Peer review is essential to uphold the quality of scientific articles and journals. The peer review process is an important stamp of approval for the publication of academic research. When an article is published in a scientific journal, readers can assume the information published is reliable, credible, and has been evaluated by an editor and at least two independent experts in the field. Predatory journals tend to miss this peer review process out completely. If the journal advertises exceptionally quick peer review timelines, investigate them further, and ensure they state online their peer review policy in full. 
  • Read through past issues of the journal. Many predatory journals will publish any and all articles that are submitted to them. Read through past issues of the journal and see whether the articles published are true to the journals’ advertised specialty areas; if a cancer journal is publishing articles on the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, you can assume their editorial policies are lacking! If you find articles with many mistakes this could show their poor Peer Review process! Also, if past issues are missing or listed as ‘coming soon’, this could be a strong sign that the journal is not legitimate.

3. Consult the Think. Check. Submit campaign website. This is a campaign run by a consortium of parties in scholarly publishing.

4. Other things to look out for (taken from Eriksen & Helgesson):

  • The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like MEDLINE or Web of Science)
  • The publisher claims to be a "leading publisher" even though it just got started
  • The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues
  • 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
  • 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)
  • The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
  • 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
  • The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus
  • The journal includes articles that are (very far) outside its stated scope
  • 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
  • Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattery 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")
  • 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
  • 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
  • The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal
  • The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts of interest, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation.

A final note for authors

While many authors who publish in predatory journals are not aware of the unethical nature of these journals, some authors are aware and yet continue to publish in these journals. For example, when Demir interviewed some of these authors, they made the following statements:

“I was conducting a project. For funding, my institution officially wanted me to publish an international paper. I had a very little time and I wittingly submitted it to a fake journal. If I had not submitted it to that journal, I would have been fined” 

“Most PhD candidates publish their work in such journals; they think that they should publish to graduate without losing time; after all, it is only a publication.” 

“I can only tell you that I knew the journal was fake and submitted my manuscript deliberately. Everybody submits their articles and takes advantage of it. Why should I wait? I submitted my manuscript so that I can immediately apply for associate professorship. That’s all I can tell you"

“If you want to earn respect in your institution, you must have a high number of publications. The more I publish, the happier I feel, and the higher my reputation grows.”

It is therefore important that authors understand that they are putting their scientific careers at peril by trying to publish in predatory journals, as follows. 

  • Many of these predatory journals do not even publish the paper, so the author ends up paying a large sum for a paper that is not available online. 
  • The paper may become inaccessible online when the predatory journal closes down.
  • If an unwitting author becomes aware of the predatory nature of the journal, they face an uphill struggle to retract the paper since the journals often become uncontactable. This leaves the author unable to republish their work in a reputable journal.
  • Universities, other institutions, and journals are becoming increasingly aware of the phenomenon of predatory publishing and thus are starting to move towards blacklisting authors. There are already some signs that this is happening. For example, the University of Saskatchewan in Canada states "Having a publication from [predatory journals] on your CV will not reflect well on you when applying for jobs."

Ultimately, publishing in predatory journals will be something that will come back to bite authors, whether they knew the journal was predatory or not. As the broader scientific community starts becoming aware of predatory journals, they will become increasingly disapproving of authors who publish in these journals. So please be careful.

Note: sometimes predatory journals are difficult to distinguish from low-quality legitimate journals that may have just started, fully intend to publish with integrity, but are still making some publishing mistakes. Memon provides an excellent summary of the differences between predatory, low-quality legitimate, and high-quality Open Access journals in their first table.

Other interesting articles on predatory journals

Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B et al. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. 2018 F1000Research 7:1001

Cress PE, Sarwer DB. 2019 Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum 1.

Moher and Srivastava. You are invited to submit...  2015 BMC Medicine (2015) 13:180 

Sharma H, Verma S. Predatory journals: The rise of worthless biomedical science. 2018 J Postgrad Med 64:226–231.