Perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences: A global survey of researchers

Abstract

A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences.The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high-income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings.

Can the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ be applied to academic publishing? Probe from the perspective of personal rights, archival science, open science and post‐publication peer review

“…As one example, a student or ECR might submit their work to an OA journal that claims to be peer reviewed, but that turns out to be a potentially predatory OA journal seeking to make gains from article processing charges, or APCs. This decision might arise from many reasons for which they might be responsible, or that may lie beyond their control, including poor advisors, insufficient knowledge, poor education, bad or uninformed decisions, or a conscientious decision (Elliott et al, 2022; Mertkan et al, 2021). In the case of a journal that fails to conduct proper peer review of manuscripts, despite claiming to be peer reviewed, a student or ECR might find themselves with a publication that carries errors, misconduct or otherwise poorly vetted (by peer reviewers and editors) work.…”

Publishing in predatory language and linguistics journals: Authors’ experiences and motivations

“…Overall, the number of empirical studies looking into the reasons why authors publish in PPJs is small, and more research is needed (Mertkan et al, 2021; Mills & Inouye, 2021). Moreover, since there are disciplinary differences in predatory publishing and because disciplines have different norms and expectations related to scholarly publishing (Cobey et al, 2019), there is a need for discipline-specific studies of predatory publishing (Elliott et al, 2022). Indeed, the existing literature falls short of providing discipline-specific accounts of why authors publish in PPJs, though findings from such studies can shed light on the problem in disciplinary context and help the disciplinary community tackle it knowingly (Mertkan et al, 2021).…”