History

The term ‘predatory journal’ was coined by Jeffrey Beall from the University of Colorado to describe titles that existed solely to generate income from authors without regard for peer-review or quality (Beall Reference Beall2012; Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). These publications shared certain characteristics in terms of their editorial boards, management model and journal integrity. Examples included an absent editor or editorial board, one with insufficient qualifications or the same board across multiple publications. Another was a lack of transparency in author fees, or a name or address (most commonly, North American) that did not adequately reflect the journal's origin. A further indicator was the use of spam email to solicit contributions; these often contained misleading information about citation indices.

Beall provided ‘blacklists’ of both standalone predatory journals and publishers of multiple titles (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). The criteria he used in compiling the list were based on the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. He later added information on counterfeit impact factors and ‘hijacked journals’, where predatory publishers created a counterfeit website of a legitimate journal to trick authors into submitting manuscripts (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). Over 6 years, Beall's list of all three categories grew steadily (standalone predatory journals, their publishers and hijacked titles) (Fig. 1). For example, the number of predatory publishers increased from just 18 in 2011 (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib) to 1294 in early 2017, when the website was taken down (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). However, several replacement websites either mirror or update the original list (Box 1). The full set of Beall's criteria is also available (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017).

FIG 1

The increase in predatory journals and publishers between 2011 and 2017.

Sources: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/infographic-journals-and-publishers-setting-sights-on-the-unwary; Manca 2017a,b; Laine 2017; https://predatoryjournals.com/about/.

There have been criticisms of Beall's approach, including a reliance on the opinion of one person (Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). It was also unclear whether his criteria distinguished predatory publishing from inexperienced publishers or publishers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib; Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). In addition, some features he thought were indicative of predatory journals, such as not being listed in standard databases and the lack of gender or geographical diversity among the editorial board, are genuine problems that can be faced by legitimate titles from LMICs (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). Nevertheless, this was the first systematic attempt to identify and address the issue.

An alternative approach is a ‘whitelist’ of open access journals that adhere to minimum standards. One example is the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). Publishers that apply for inclusion in the directory must not charge readers or their institutions for access and must exercise peer-review or editorial quality control. The DOAJ has been criticised for relatively lax standards in the past but has tightened the criteria for inclusion and now awards the DOAJ seal of approval (Box 2) to journals that meet best practice in terms of openness and publishing standards (Van Noorden Reference Van Noorden2014). This approach has reaped dividends. In one study of neurology and neuroscience journals, only 1 of the 101 predatory neurology titles appeared in the DOAJ (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a). There were no predatory journals among the 87 neuroscience titles in the directory. By contrast, inclusion in PubMed is a relatively poor indicator of quality (Manca Reference Manca, Cugusi and Dvir2017c). In the same study of neurology journals, 24.7% of the predatory journals were included in the PubMed database. There were similar findings in a study of rehabilitation medicine, where only 1 out of 59 predatory journals was included in the DOAJ, as opposed to 7 (11.9%) in PubMed (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib).

A further website (Cabell's) provides both white- and backlists. Unfortunately, this is behind a paywall, although some institutions may have a subscription.

A final approach is the use of checklists such as those on the ‘Think. Check. Submit.’ website (Box 1).

None of these strategies is fool-proof and the World Association of Medical Editors recommends a combination of all three (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017).

The current situation

There have been several reviews on the extent and characteristics of predatory publishing in neurology, neuroscience, rehabilitation and emergency medicine (Hansoti Reference Hansoti, Langdorf and Murphy2016; Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib). These papers identified several common themes. For instance, in many cases, it was impossible to determine the geographical location of the journal (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib). Where it was possible to know, India was the most common country of origin of predatory journals covering neuroscience (39.2%), followed by the USA (35.5%) (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a). In the case of rehabilitation medicine, most publishers were again based in India (36%), with the USA in second place (25%) (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017b). These figures are consistent with findings from another study, in which 75% of predatory journals came from LMIC countries (Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017).

Article processing charges (in US$) were generally around $500–700, lower than those for journals listed in the DOAJ (approximately $1000) and for hybrid journals ($3000) (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib). The disparity in APCs was even greater in another paper that directly compared predatory and non-predatory journals. This reported a median fee of only $100 (interquartile range IQR $63–150) in predatory journals (n = 59), $1866 (IQR $800–2205) in open access journals (n = 70) and $3000 (IQR $2500–3000) in hybrid journals (n = 44) (Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017).

The same paper noted that predatory journals were more likely to have websites showing spelling errors or poor-quality images than those of legitimate open access or subscription titles. One-third promoted a questionable impact factor, the Index Copernicus Value rather than a recognised index. Other characteristics from Beall's list were less discriminating. For instance, although 73% of predatory journals did not name an editor or editorial board, 13% of legitimate journals did not identify an editor-in-chief either (Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017).

The risks of predatory journals

Inexperienced researchers are at particular risk of submitting a paper following an unsolicited email. Although low APCs and fast, guaranteed acceptance may seem tempting, there are serious drawbacks to submitting to a predatory journal. Fees may be hidden and, following so-called publication, papers may not be indexed in a reputable database and so will be difficult to find. Common claims that a title is indexed in Google Scholar are misleading because this is an internet search engine, not an indexing database of pre-selected journals (Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017). As predatory journals rarely curate material, there is also the risk that a paper could disappear from one day to the next. Potentially legitimate findings may therefore be lost forever, with implications for future systematic reviews. Once made, the mistake to submit to a predatory journal is difficult to correct. This is because predatory journals are very reluctant to retract a published paper, thereby removing the opportunity to submit somewhere more appropriate.

Unfortunately, some researchers submit to predatory journals in full knowledge of their actions because of academic and time pressures – indeed, it has been suggested that predatory journals might be better named pseudo-journals, as some authors are not ‘prey’ (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). This rather short-sighted approach has risks, given that academic promotion and tenure committees are increasingly aware of the problem.

Aside from the potential loss of legitimate research that is published in predatory journals, a lack of peer review and the need to generate revenue can lead to the publication of pseudo-science. Some examples are easy to spot, such as an article on the technological and management qualities of a prehistoric super race living on Mars published in the American Journal of Industrial and Business Management (Arulmani Reference Arulmani and Latha2013). The following quotation (shown here as it appears online) comes from the abstract:

The lack of peer review has also allowed the publication of spoof science, including a paper based on a Star Trek: Voyager episode submitted from the Starfleet Academy that was published in identical forms in two journals (Paris Reference Paris, Kim and Torres2017a,Reference Paris, Kim and Torresb). A third unlikely publication consisted entirely of one expletive phrase repeated throughout the abstract and text of the paper that was accepted unaltered by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology (Stromberg Reference Stromberg2014).

Of even greater concern is that predatory journals can give room and credibility to untested controversial ideas that would not normally pass peer review (Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). A further danger is that such content will be cited and repeated in other journals, including legitimate titles (Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018).There may even be threats to patient safety if clinicians apply findings to patient care (Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). Although not published in a non-predatory journal, the paper by Wakefield (Reference Wakefield, Murch and Anthony1998) linking vaccination to autism, which was subsequently retracted (Lancet Reference Lancet2010), is a cautionary tale of how this might happen.

Top tips to avoid being prey

The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommends a three-step process to avoid predatory journals and publishers (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017). The first is to assess whether the journal has any of the characteristics Beall viewed as potentially problematic (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017) or appears in blacklists that update and build on Beall's original work (Box 1). A checklist such as ‘Think. Check. Submit.’ also helps (Box 3), given concerns that Beall may have been over-inclusive and that some of his criteria may not accurately discriminate between predatory and non-predatory journals (Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017; Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). The next is to check whether the journal is listed in the DOAJ or meets DOAJ seal criteria (Box 2). Finally, the journal's website, practices and policies should be reviewed for potential red flags (Box 4) (Moher Reference Moher and Srivastava2015; Laine Reference Laine and Winker2017; Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a,Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusib; Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017; Richtig Reference Richtig, Berger and Lange-Asschenfeldt2018). These include a broad scope of content and invitations to contribute or join an editorial board by poorly spelled emailed spam. Authors should be particularly wary of cited impact factors. Predatory journals can either misrepresent their score on recognised impact factor indicators such as Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), or use unrecognised alternatives with similar sounding names (Box 4) (Jalalian Reference Jalalian and Mahboobi2013, Reference Jalalian2015; Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017).

Do not submit a paper to a journal in response to spam emails ((Fig. 2). Unsubscribing is often difficult, especially in the absence of a relevant link. Replying directly carries the risk of confirming the validity of the email address to which it was sent. Using spam filters may sometimes work but a better strategy is to ask your employer's information technology (IT) department to add the publisher's URL to the institutional firewall blacklist (Moher Reference Moher and Srivastava2015).

FIG 2

An example of a spam email inviting submission of papers.

The future

This important issue merits comprehensive and urgent action to minimise the harms of predatory publishing. Inexperienced researchers would benefit from both mentoring by their supervisor and didactic courses from their institution to increase awareness of the associated dangers. Such courses should form part of the syllabus of any higher degree research. Articles such as this can also help. Importantly, as previously mentioned, researchers should ignore spam email, as attempts to unsubscribe may be futile. Databases such as PubMed and PubMed Central should both enforce and tighten their inclusion criteria for journals, as well as monitor the titles that are already included (Manca Reference Manca, Cugusi and Dvir2017c, Reference Manca, Moher and Cugusi2018).

Scopus, MEDLINE and the DOAJ already apply higher standards, with the result that in one study of predatory journals in neurology and neuroscience, none of the target journals appeared in Scopus or MEDLINE (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017a). Researchers and non-predatory journals should also avoid citing articles published in predatory journals (Manca Reference Manca, Martinez and Cugusi2017b).

Editors of legitimate journals could also help reduce predatory spam by restricting contact details in published papers to the authors’ department and university affiliations, omitting email addresses. The latter are usually available on the websites of the authors’ host institutions but finding them is more time-consuming. This would eliminate one easy way of obtaining email addresses for predatory spam. In the absence of a uniform change of policy, authors can request that email addresses are withheld.

Predatory journals are also a symptom of wider issues. One is the pressure to publish and an overemphasis on the quantity rather than the quality of publications. Another is the reliance of gold open access on APCs levied on authors. APCs disadvantage junior authors, who may not have access to sufficient funds, as well as those from LMICs who have to apply for discounts based on the gross national income (GNI) or human development index (HDI) of their country (Research4Life 2018). Some journals, such as BJPsych Open, do have funds to assist authors (e.g. the Academic Freedom Fund) but these are discretionary (Kaufman Reference Kaufman2018). Green open access may offer a more cost-effective alternative for the dissemination of findings, provided that the copyright agreement is respected. If APCs are levied, there should be greater transparency regarding the amount, given that charges for non-predatory journals range from $800 to $3000 (Shamseer Reference Shamseer, Moher and Maduekwe2017). These prices help feed the demand for predatory publishing.