Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

Abstract

BackgroundThe Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as ‘predatory’, which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.MethodsOn July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified – potential predatory journals (source: Beall’s List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.ResultsNinety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals’ homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric – the Index Copernicus Value – versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63–$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800–$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500–$3000).ConclusionsWe identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates’ publications as part of the hiring process.

Problems and challenges of predatory journals

“…Legitimate publishers provide access to an accepted manuscript submission system in almost 100% of the cases, while predatory journals have been shown to request authors to send the articles by email in nearly 70% of the cases. Shamseer and colleagues could also show that most predatory journals were based in developing countries, possibly explaining why the true operating country of the publisher is frequently not stated on the website of the journal 32. In conclusion, authors should check whether the publisher is genuine and the contact details (especially address and phone number) are listed and valid, as these items seem to be good predictors of legitimate publishers.…”

“…Young researchers are inexperienced in the process of publishing and therefore unaware of predatory journals 32, 43. In this situation, companies publishing predatory journals offer the young scientists, who are often frustrated by a series of rejections, rapid peer review processes and publication times 21, 32, 41, 44, 45.…”

“…In this situation, companies publishing predatory journals offer the young scientists, who are often frustrated by a series of rejections, rapid peer review processes and publication times 21, 32, 41, 44, 45. Sometimes, the authors mistrusts the quality of their own work and would rather publish their work in a predatory journal 41…”

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

“…At least two people, working independently, assessed whether each journal met Medline's selection criteria as having a biomedical scope. We randomly selected 200 journals from this list; we also included 45 biomedical standalone journals from a set that had been developed similarly for another study 4 .…”

“…Our research group has identified 13 characteristics of predatory journals; these include low article-processing fees (less than US$150); spelling and grammar errors on the website; an overly broad scope; language that targets authors rather than readers; promises of rapid publication; and a lack of information about retraction policies, manuscript handling or digital preservation. Manu script submissions by e-mail and the inclusion of distorted images are also common 4 .…”