What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Abstract

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped. Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors. Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

How can a questionable journal be identified: Frameworks and checklists

“…Cobey et al () finds as many as 109 different characteristics from 38 empirical studies; however, many are unique (about 40%), and many are overlapping. Eriksson and Helgesson () find 25 characteristics.…”

“…• Fees, especially fees paid in advance Some frameworks for identifying questionable journals focus more on technical aspects (Sorooshian, 2016): As we can see, a number of simple models exist; however, they are surprisingly diverse in their approach, and we therefore turn to the more complex models. Cobey et al (2018) finds as many as 109 different characteristics from 38 empirical studies; however, many are unique (about 40%), and many are overlapping. Eriksson and Helgesson (2016) find 25 characteristics.…”

Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics

“…Prioritizing self-interests at the expense of scholarship, these outlets exploit the open access (OA) model of publishing. They offer to publish articles but do not provide the services one would expect to receive from a legitimate journal [5][6][7]. Amongst other deficiencies, predatory journals do not guarantee archiving and long-term access to their contents [6,8].…”

“…They offer to publish articles but do not provide the services one would expect to receive from a legitimate journal [5][6][7]. Amongst other deficiencies, predatory journals do not guarantee archiving and long-term access to their contents [6,8]. For this reason, their publications generate limited readership, are rarely cited, and might eventually be lost [9].…”

Identifying neurodisability research priorities in resource poor regions

“…This pressure to publish or perish has generated a whole industry of ‘predatory publishing’. Predatory journals have certain characteristics; they tend to be open access e‐journals with poor peer review systems, poor transparency, fee‐based article processing, and are not indexed in worldwide databases of scholarly journals. In 2014, the industry had over 800 e‐journals and published 420 000 articles, the average author fee was $178 .…”