Does small equal predatory? Analysis of publication charges and transparency of editorial policies in Croatian open access journals

Abstract

IntroductionWe approach the problem of "predatory" journals and publishers from the perspective of small scientific communities and small journals that may sometimes be perceived as "predatory". Among other characteristics of "predatory" journals two most relevant are their business model and the quality of the editorial work.Materials and methodsWe analysed 444 Croatian open access (OA) journals in the Hrčak (portal of Croatian scientific journals) digital journal repository for the presence of article processing charges as a business model and the transparency of editorial policies.ResultsThe majority of journals do not charge authors or require submission or article processing charges, which clearly distinguishes them from “predatory” journals. Almost all Hrčak OA journals have publicly available information on editorial boards, including full names and affiliations, and detailed contact information for the editorial office at the Hrčak website. The journal names are unique and cannot be easily confused with another journal or intend to mislead about the journal’s origin. While most journals provide information on peer review process, many do not provide guidelines for reviewers or other editorial and publication ethics standards.ConclusionIn order to clearly differentiate themselves from predatory journals, it is not enough for journals from small research communities to operate on non-commercial bases, but also to have transparent editorial policies.

Problems and challenges of predatory journals

“…The journal's scope is too broad, covering almost all fields of science 37 Publishing ethics and standards Research and publishing ethics are not followed; reviewing, editing and or indexing services are not provided 16,19 Indexing Predatory publishers claim to have their articles indexed, while they are, in fact, not indexed in any important databases such as MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science 40 Copy-editing and spelling errors Published articles are poorly copy-edited and contain numerous typographical or grammatical errors. In addition, such errors can be found on the journal's website, which also commonly include dead links 22 Submission system Predatory journals ask authors to send their manuscripts by email, instead through a professional manuscript submission system 32 Table 3 Criteria to receive the Seal of Approval for Open Access Journals (DOAJ Seal) by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)…”

“…35,36 The titles of such journals often sound quite ambitious and include words such as 'Innovative', 'World', 'International', 'Global', 'American', or 'European', covering almost all scientific areas. 37 Another disturbing trend is the fact that cybercriminals register a domain name in order to create fraudulent websites for a counterfeit journal, which are designed to look identical to those of a legitimate scientific journal ('hijacking'). 38 Does the journal follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers?…”

Croatian scientists’ awareness of predatory journals

“…The criteria ensure the high quality of Croatian journals. Quality control is mainly enacted through the traditional concept of peer review, mostly double-blind review by two peer reviewers (Stojanovski & Marušić, 2017). Before a journal is allowed to be listed on the Hrčak portal, its editorial process (including peer review) is evaluated.…”

Editorial challenges in a small scientific community: Study of Croatian editors

“…Zrinščak () investigated editorial policies in the social sciences scientific journals in Croatia and found that scientific journals need editors with substantial experience in editing and reviewing, as well as more professionalism, and that the quality of the peer review process in investigated social sciences scientific journals differed from case to case. The study about the peer review process written by Stojanovski and Marušić () analysed 444 Croatian open access journals and found that the transparency of the peer review process was not high.…”