Predatory Publishing

Predatory publishing encompasses a range of unethical practices employed by certain publishers, journals, and conferences to exploit researchers.

A predatory publisher is an entity that offers publication services without adhering to recognized academic and ethical standards. They may publish multiple low-quality journals, books, or organize conferences that lack proper peer review and editorial oversight, primarily aiming to generate profit rather than contribute to scholarly communication.

 

Key Characteristics of Predatory Publishers

Reference: Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers

Predatory publishing poses significant risks to academic researchers, including:

For Researchers

• Damage to Reputation: Publishing in predatory journals can lead to the marginalisation of a researcher’s work, as it may be dismissed by peers, academic institutions, and funding bodies due to the lack of rigorous academic standards.

• Financial Exploitation: Researchers may incur substantial, often hidden, publication fees imposed by predatory publishers, leading to the depletion of research funds with little or no academic return.

• Career Impact: Engaging with predatory publishing can have a detrimental effect on an academic’s professional trajectory, as their association with low-quality venues can diminish their credibility and hinder future opportunities for collaboration, funding, or advancement.

Supporting Data:

• A study by Shen and Björk (2015) found that over 400,000 articles were published in predatory journals in 2014.
• Growth of Predatory Journals (2010–2023): The proliferation of predatory publishers has continued, emphasising the need for heightened awareness within the academic community.

Source: COPE Guidelines

 

 

Identifying predatory publishers can be challenging, but several indicators and tools can assist researchers in making informed decisions.

a. Red Flags 

Red Flags are specific warning signs or indicators that suggest a journal, publisher, or conference may be predatory. These are actionable items that researchers can look out for to identify potential predatory practices.
 

 

---

b. Comparison: Legitimate vs. Predatory Practices 

Comparison involves contrasting legitimate publishing practices with predatory ones. This helps researchers understand the fundamental differences and assess the legitimacy of a publisher or journal.
 

16 Principles Categorised by Predatory Journals, Publishers, Books and Chapters, and Conferences
 

The 16 Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing, developed collaboratively by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, can be categorised to help identify predatory practices across different publishing domains.

Predatory Journals

Principle	Legitimate Practices	Predatory Practices
Website	Provides clear and accurate information, regularly updated.	Contains misleading or false information; mimics reputable journals.
Peer Review Process	Clearly described and consistently implemented.	Opaque or nonexistent peer review; guarantees manuscript acceptance.
Editorial Board	Editorial board members are verifiable experts.	Board members are unverifiable, fabricated, or irrelevant.
Indexing	Indexed in credible databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science).	False claims of indexing or fabricated impact factors.
Author Fees	Clearly stated upfront and reasonable.	Hidden or excessive fees revealed post-acceptance.
Access	Articles are accessible as described (e.g., Open Access).	Articles are inaccessible despite claims; unclear access policies.
Archiving	Content is preserved through recognised services (e.g., CLOCKSS, Portico).	No digital preservation or archiving policy.

Predatory Publishers

Principle	Legitimate Practices	Predatory Practices
Ownership and Management	Ownership is clearly stated and transparent.	Ownership details are missing, misleading, or unclear.
Revenue Sources	Transparent business models and revenue streams.	Unclear or unethical revenue practices; linked to editorial decisions.
Copyright and Licensing	Policies are transparent, allowing authors to retain key rights.	Policies are unclear or force authors to relinquish excessive rights.
Advertising	Advertisements are separate from editorial decisions and clearly marked.	Advertising influences editorial decisions or is misleading.
Direct Marketing	Targeted and professional communication.	Aggressive, spam-like emails with exaggerated claims.

Predatory Conferences

Principle	Legitimate Practices	Predatory Practices
Website	Provides accurate event details, including location, agenda, and sponsors.	Lacks details about the event or mimics reputable conferences.
Speaker Line-Up	Keynote speakers are recognised experts with verifiable affiliations.	Speakers are fabricated or credentials are exaggerated.
Peer Review	Papers undergo a clear and rigorous review process.	No review process or superficial evaluation of submissions.
Registration Fees	Fees are proportional to the conference scope and disclosed upfront.	Exorbitant or hidden registration fees.
Indexing	Conference proceedings are indexed in credible databases.	False claims of indexing or non-existent proceedings.
Event Quality	Recognised and endorsed by academic or professional bodies.	Poorly organised or newly created conferences without academic recognition.

 

Reference: Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing

---

A Checklist provides a practical, step-by-step guide that researchers can use to evaluate the legitimacy of journals, publishers, books, chapters, and conferences. It serves as a quick reference tool to ensure all critical aspects are considered before submission or participation.

Flowchart for Recognising Predatory Journals

Description:
A visual tool to help researchers assess whether a journal is likely predatory by answering simple questions such as:

• Is the journal indexed in reputable databases?
• Does the journal disclose clear peer-review policies?
• Are the fees reasonable and transparent?

Source: Think. Check. Submit

 

 

 

Downloadable Checklist

https://onesearch.library.utoronto.ca/sites/default/public/copyright/PredatoryPublishersChecklist2024_0.pdf
https://www.academicintegrity.eu/materials/277

 

Understanding real-life scenarios and case studies helps in recognising predatory practices effectively.

 

Reference:

• Beall’s List
• Think. Check. Submit
• COPE Guidelines

 

Predatory publishing affects not only individual researchers but also academic institutions and the broader public.

For Researchers

• Damage to Reputation: Publishing in predatory journals can lead to the marginalisation of a researcher’s work, as it may be dismissed by peers, academic institutions, and funding bodies due to the lack of rigorous academic standards.

• Financial Exploitation: Researchers may incur substantial, often hidden, publication fees imposed by predatory publishers, leading to the depletion of research funds with little or no academic return.

• Career Impact: Engaging with predatory publishing can have a detrimental effect on an academic’s professional trajectory, as their association with low-quality venues can diminish their credibility and hinder future opportunities for collaboration, funding, or advancement.

For Institutions

• Compromise of Academic Integrity: Institutions that inadvertently support or overlook predatory publishing practices risk undermining the integrity of their scholarly output, thereby tarnishing their reputation and academic standing.

For the Public

• Dissemination of Misinformation: Predatory publishing plays a significant role in spreading unverified or misleading research, which can adversely influence public policy, healthcare decisions, and public perceptions, with potentially harmful consequences for public well-being.

Source: Shen & Björk, 2015

 

Sources: 

1. Beall’s List of Predatory Journals and Publishers
2. Think. Check. Submit.
3. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
4. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
5. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
6. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
7. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) by Clarivate Analytics
8. Sherpa Romeo

1. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
   Principles of Transparency

2. UNESCO Guidelines on Avoiding Predatory Journals
   UNESCO Guidelines

3. COPE Discussion Document on Predatory Publishing
   COPE Guidelines

1. "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" by Bohannon, J. (2013). Science.
   Science Article

2. "Predatory Publishing: The Dark Side of Open Access" by Oermann, M. H., & Hays, J. (2019). Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions.
   Journal Article

3. "The Rise of Predatory Publishing in Academic Research" by Smith, R. (2016). Research Integrity and Peer Review.
   Research Article