PREYING ON IGNORANCE

Predatory publishers prey on the naïve, often providing news about their acceptance—usually in less than two weeks—before revealing publication costs. Xia et al. (Reference Xia, Harmon, Connolly, Donnelly, Anderson and Howard2015) found that these predatory journals largely attract young researchers from developing countries who are likely to be ignorant of publication standards. This naivety also is common among graduate students outside of research-oriented programs, where advice from faculty on where to publish often is lacking. Parallels are evident between predatory publishers and the Nigerian e-mail scam in that the poorly constructed façade attempted to attract only the most naïve, culling those likely to waste a publisher’s time (Herley Reference Herley2012). Furthermore, although some of these journals have published articles without the requested fee (Beall Reference Beall2015a; Kolata Reference Kolata2013), more commonly, the predatory publisher demands an additional fee to retract the article (Beall Reference Beall2015c).

I recently tested the credibility of an offer from the Review of History and Political Science ^{Footnote 3} because its publishing company website, American Research Institute for Policy Development (ARIPD), ^{Footnote 4} appeared comparatively more professional than many other offers. ^{Footnote 5} To test their peer-review standards, I formatted the lyrics to Justin Timberlake’s 2006 hit song, “SexyBack,” into paragraph form, copying it 32 times to replicate the length of an article. ^{Footnote 6} Three weeks later, my paper was accepted, along with how to submit the previously unmentioned $200 “publication processing fee.” The reviewer notes I received stated that my literature review was adequate (despite no citations or acknowledgment of Mr. Timberlake’s contribution to the paper), that my work “will undoubtedly contribute to the field of contemporary research,” that “it follows the basic principles of good research,” and that, ironically, “there is a good consistency in the paper.”

Whereas many of the published works even from a cursory view are subpar, examples abound in which scholars—likely inadvertently—submitted seemingly quality work to a predatory publisher. The problem is exacerbated by journals that frequently and intentionally adopt similar titles to prestigious outlets and develop professional websites similar to reputable OA journals. Suggesting that the journal is based in the United States further implies legitimacy. Crawford (2014, 17), for example, found 287 examples on the Beall List of “America Journal of”—more than double for the number of other regional titles.

Hijacked journals present a similar problem, in which predatory publishers copy the name of an established peer-review journal (e.g., Butler Reference Butler2013) or in other ways take over reputable outlets. For example, Experimental & Clinical Cardiology was sold in 2013 and then published 142 articles in one month with little to no editing (Spears Reference Spears2014b). Predatory hijacking further creates reputational risks for those listed on editorial boards—people who often unwittingly agree to join the board or are holdovers from before a sale and are rarely removed even after complaints (e.g., Kolata Reference Kolata2013). Other hijackers entirely fabricate editorial boards.

OTHER PROBLEMS

The broader ramifications of predatory outlets receive less attention. Whereas the focus is often on the publisher, unscrupulous people can manipulate these outlets for their own gain. Traditionally, peer-reviewed journals play the role of gatekeeper, signaling that the accepted work makes a scholarly contribution and assisting indirectly in the evaluation of hiring and tenure decisions. The rise of predatory journals complicates this process (e.g., Kolata Reference Kolata2013)—not only by creating confusion between similarly titled peer-reviewed and predatory journals but also by individuals using these outlets to inflate their publication count, especially when a threshold (e.g., three articles) all but ensures tenure. OA journals traditionally are cited more than those behind a “pay wall” (e.g., Antelman Reference Antelman2004; Craig et al. Reference Craig, Plume, McVeigh, Pringle and Amin2007; Lawrence Reference Lawrence2001), although the social sciences see less of a bump. The rise of Google Scholar metrics, which—unlike the Institute for Scientific Information—makes no effort to evaluate journal quality, thereby providing additional demand for predatory publishers. For example, Beall (Reference Beall2015b) identified a case using predatory publications to greatly inflate a researcher’s Google Scholar citation count. Moreover, the increased expectations in the quality of publications in both tenure decisions and university resources incentivize the use of predatory publishers. This is particularly problematic for scholars in the developing world, where publishing in “international” journals often is a requirement for promotion.

Furthermore, the proliferation of predatory publishing creates broader confusion within disciplines. For example, Kaiser et al. (Reference Kaiser, Crother, Kelly, Luiselli, O’Shea, Ota, Passos, Schleip and Wuster2013) pointed out the destructive influence in herpetology of the proliferation of taxons without proper evidence. Issues ranging from consistency in terminology to accepted methodological standards to the accumulation of knowledge become increasingly difficult to maintain because traditional peer-reviewed and predatory journals share the same academic marketplace.

Finally, by portraying themselves as peer-reviewed, predatory publishers risk damaging the integrity of academia, precisely at a time when social-science funding increasingly is in jeopardy. Research in predatory journals frequently is not heavily criticized by those outside of the field. For example, Chronicle of Higher Education (Berrett Reference Berrett2012) summarized an article published in Psychology Research (Gharib, Phillips, and Mathew Reference Gharib, Phillips and Mathew2012) that failed to identify the journal’s questionable editorial standards. Attorneys also have decried how such questionable journals undermine the credibility of scholarly research submitted as court evidence (Hoenig Reference Hoenig2014). Calin-Jageman and Beall (Reference Calin-Jageman and Beall2013) argued that journalists should avoid citing predatory journals entirely. However, this puts the onus on those outside of the discipline to protect its standards and reputation. Whereas an academic audience within its insular community may call out potential junk science, ^{Footnote 7} the discipline also must proactively tackle the ignorance among the larger audience of reputable-versus-questionable outlets.

WHAT CAN BE DONE

Reputable OA journals remain the lifeline for many scholars, especially in developing countries, and the proliferation of predatory publishers can lead to unwarranted discrimination against the reputable venues. The challenge thus becomes separating reputable from disreputable outlets.

A first step is to identify the common signs of predatory publishers: the lack of transparency on publishing fees, the subpar quality of the journal’s web page, the unusual frequency of published articles, and the authors and editorial staff that are unknown in the field and concentrated in developing countries. This imperfect checklist should be supplemented with greater efforts at establishing publication-cost standards for reputable OA journals; the costs can vary from less than a hundred to several thousand dollars (Van Noorden Reference Van Noorden2013). Efforts to standardize or at least reduce the cost variance would help to identify predatory efforts.

A next step is to focus attention on the alternatives to predatory outlets. Websites including JournalGuide ^{Footnote 8} and the Journal/Author Name Estimation (JANE) ^{Footnote 9} assist by suggesting reputable outlets based on a paper’s title and abstract. Although the Beall List is a starting point for those outlets to avoid, a similarly expansive list of reputable journals relevant to political science’s diverse subfields remains elusive. The frequent lists of journals provided by PS and the Australian Political Studies Association, ^{Footnote 10} or inclusion in the Social Science Citation Index or Thomson Reuters Citation Report , provide useful shortcuts for authors. However, these sources are not exhaustive lists and frequently omit OA journals. Greater efforts are necessary to highlight OA journals that meet conventional peer-review expectations, such as those of the Directory of Open Access Journals. ^{Footnote 11}

Admittedly, these steps are unlikely to curb the proliferation of predatory journals as demand from the naïve to the unscrupulous increases. Neither should the solution be to take the narrower standards often applied at top research universities and only count a select few prestigious outlets toward tenure and promotion. Instead, the discipline should focus more on promoting reputable OA journals and proactively engaging nonacademic audiences to limit the influence of predatory outlets.