Since the 1990s, scholarly publishing has been transformed from subscription print-based
paradigm to an open access and digital publishing model, but this transformation has
been accompanied by unethical and predatory publishing practices.1
2 ‘Pay-to-publish’ predatory journals abuse the open-access publishing model, and
their main intention is to make money out of authors for their editor–owners.3
4 The defining characteristic of predatory journals is the lack of a proper peer review
process, despite their claims to the contrary.4 The spectrum of victims of predatory
journals varies widely and includes inexperienced, early-career and naive researchers
from both developing and high- to upper middle-income countries, together with experienced
researchers.3
4
5 To circumvent this, several black and whitelists have been created. Beall's list
of potential or probable predatory journals remained the go-to list until its sudden
closure.6 Later, similar lists such as the Stop Predatory Journals website (https://predatoryjournals.com),
and institutional lists such as those published by the University Grants Commission
(UGC) India, and several other commercial bodies and associations appeared; however,
they have been criticized for several reasons, including their poor methodology and
lack of transparency.7
8
9 The world of scholarly publishing is not purely black and white, and there are always
some grey areas; therefore, we cannot rely on any such listings.
Given the history of errors in white and black listings, and the ongoing criticism
and controversy surrounding them, would it be appropriate to say that the term “predatory”
is a misnomer? Recently, scholars have questioned the validity of the term and have
proposed alternatives in order to avoid stigmatizing legitimate, low-quality journals
or journals that have not yet been indexed.4 Additionally, when non-serious scholars
seek out predatory journals as an easy and fast route to publication in order to increase
their number of publications, and consequently support them through the payment of
article processing charges, the term ‘predatory’ appears to be out of context.4
10 It is more like a symbiotic relation between researchers who try to cheat the system,
and greedy publishers.4
Another question concerns whether predatory practices are really limited to journals
from developing countries, and whether it is appropriate to label emerging journals
as “predatory”? Evidence suggests that predatory practices can also be seen in established
journals.4 For instance, Bohannon's sting showed that even journals from mega-publishers
such as Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and SAGE could accept a bogus paper.11 Similarly,
Elsevier has been criticized for high subscription costs, publishing several journals
that basically serve as adverts for unnamed drug companies, and charging readers for
open-access articles.12
Generally speaking, being indexed in databases like PubMed and the Directory of Open
Access Journals is considered an important determinant of a journal's quality. However,
these databases have been criticized for their inclusion of predatory journals.4
8
13 Similar errors have been noted in the case of organizations such as the Open Access
Scholarly Publishers Association. Of course, no blacklist or whitelist can substitute
for a detailed investigation of a journal.14 In fact, some authors argue that the
selection of journals for inclusion in scholarly databases is rarely transparent,
and that many excellent journals exist (with a significant national or regional readership)
that may not be indexed in such databases; thus, indexing is insufficient to determine
the quality of a journal.15
So how do we draw a line between emerging, legitimate journals and dubious, pay-to
publish journals? In this context, several criteria including the Predatory Rate and
Predatory Journals Algorithm have emerged.4
8 Recently, Eriksson et al. have suggested comprehensive criteria for differentiating
between the two, with the aim of ending the use of the misnomer “predatory”, where
they categorize journals into two distinct types based on their characteristics: 1)
low-quality journals, and 2) deceptive journals.4 However, these criteria lack robustness
to clearly differentiate between low quality versus deceptive journals. In fact, there
is a significant overlap among the features proposed to differentiate the two categories
of the journals. For instance, the scope of low-quality journals may not necessarily
be broad but it may be true for deceptive journals in most of the cases. Similarly,
special issue outside the scope of the journal may be a feature of most of the deceptive
journals but not of the low-quality journals. Likewise, spamming researchers, whose
expertise is out of the journal's scope, to submit manuscripts is typically associated
with deceptive journals.8 Although debatable, indexing in irrelevant agencies or not
being indexed in relevant databases is an overlapping feature of both the low-quality
and deceptive journals.
At the same time, however, it should be noted that the speed of review varies from
journal to journal, and the type of publication. For instance, letters and opinion
pieces may not necessary undergo peer review and may simply be reviewed by the journal's
editors; these articles can be quickly accepted and published. Similarly, some journals
set very short deadlines for reviewers (i.e., 1 or 2 weeks), which may be another
reason why a manuscript can be quickly accepted.16 For that reason, it is important
that the scientific community stops using the misnomer “predatory” as a generalized
term, due to its limitations, and which erroneously includes low-quality journals
from the developing world. Therefore, we need a more rigorous and specific set of
criteria to differentiate between low-quality versus the so called ‘deceptive’ journals
(Table 1).
Researchers suggest that low-cost, open access publishing serves a useful purpose
in the global arena.4
17
18 Giving space to regional journals would help to reduce deceptive publishing practices,
and help socioeconomically disadvantaged authors to publish in legitimate, open-access
journals at no or low cost.2 Similarly, scholars suggest that instead of discussing
predatory publishing, we should start distinguishing between deceptive and low-quality
journals.4
Some authors argue that we should educate researchers in “scholarly publishing literacy”
or “science literacy” in order to improve their understanding of open-access publishing
practices.11
19 Moreover, creating a research environment that promotes critical thinking among
researchers can be an effective way to foster an understanding of the difference between
legitimate and deceptive publishing practices.11 Institutions and mentors should try
to educate researchers in how to determine the legitimacy of a journal. A good starting
point for learning about positive and negative journal characteristics is the algorithm
provided by the World Association of Medical Editors and the rubric “Open Access Journal
Quality Indicators” (https://www.gvsu.edu/library/sc/open-access-journal-quality-indicators-5.htm).20
21 Moreover, Clark and Thompson's recommendations22 for developing a publication strategy
may help. The Think-Check-Submit (https://thinkchecksubmit.org) initiative by the
International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) is also
a good way to start learning about the quality of a journal.7
8 For a more thorough analysis of the journal's quality, INASP provides a checklist
of 108 criteria based on publishing practices and standards.4 These are a few ways
that the authors should try and learn about deceptive journals.
Additionally, researchers need to understand that legitimate, new journals and low-quality
journals from developing countries may not necessarily be indexed in databases or
directories such as Clarivate Analytics.7 Therefore, such journals should not be considered
deceptive. Since indexing in databases is becoming more and more difficult, and given
that databases are skewed in favor of developed countries, the existence of local
or regional databases such as the Croatian “Hrcak”, “SciELO” in Latin America, the
Korean “Science Central”, and the “African Science Citation” Index can serve a good
purpose.2
11
23 In order to avoid wasteful publishing practices and promote research integrity
in non-mainstream science countries, the Sarajevo Declaration of the Balkan and Mediterranean
countries is a good step, and further such steps would help to improve publishing
standards and the scientific prestige of developing countries.24 Other similar moves
include the Dakar Declaration and the Council for the Development of Social Science
Research in Africa (CODESRIA) open access conference.14
Institutions and universities whose authors have published in predatory journals could
be asked to write an official retraction letter to these journals, and submit their
rewritten papers to legitimate journals. As such, serious researchers who have erroneously
published their papers in such journals should do the same. Examples of such incidents
were discussed by a few scholars, where authors retracted their paper from a predatory
publisher and published it in a legitimate journal.3
5
25 Researchers and institutions should not rely on blacklists or whitelists, given
the limitations that were discussed earlier.7
8
9
14
26 Similarly, institutions or regulatory organizations should be careful when issuing
guidelines or policies. For instance, the new policy of the Medical Council of India
has been criticized for the inclusion of a questionable indexing service called Index
Copernicus, and overtly excluding legitimate open-access journals.27 A similar error
was noted in the guidelines published by the UGC India.9 In their recruitment procedures,
institutions and organizations should not consider applications that show evidence
of publishing in deceptive journals, and the same criteria should be adopted in the
selection and promotion process for faculty positions.26
28
Recent evidence suggests that developing countries contribute little to education
against predatory journals; thus, experienced scholars from developing countries should
get involved in the scientific discourse about deceptive and low-quality journals.29
Almost all journals published in developing countries face problems such as poor infrastructure,
insufficient funding, lack of visibility and readability, limited distribution and
low citation impact.2
24 Journal editors from these counties are therefore advised to evaluate their publishing
practices and identify anything that may appear dubious or that meets the criteria
for a deceptive journal.30 Although open-access journals from such countries do not
charge authors, which keeps them out of the potential predatory circle, editorial
standards should be sufficiently transparent to avoid meeting the criteria for a predatory
journal.2
Several names such as dodgy, fraudulent, pseudo, questionable, sham, and illegitimate
have been previously used for the ‘predatory’ journals. A recent paper suggested replacing
the term “predatory” by “parodical” publishers because they expose, among other aspects
of the dark side of contemporary knowledge production, the prevailing commercial context
along with the marginalization of scholarship from the global South and the strong
bias toward research from mainstream Northern countries.31 Some authors even argue
that the giant journal publishers have also been involved in unethical publishing
practices but the focus of discourse on predatory publishing practices has always
been on the periphery in order to exempt the central countries and commercial elites
from being into the spotlight.31
32 Since the current paradigm of scholarly publishing does not consider the problems
of publishers and authors from the developing countries of global South, some authors
argue that the researchers should intend to publish in local journals and publishers
from this region and should strive to promote the standards of their journals. 24
33
34 This implies that the regional journals should be interested in quality than the
quantity and the commercial elites, at the same time, should consider revising their
publishing model so that it may be inclusive of the authors from non-mainstream science
countries.
To conclude, there is need of a well-formulated, uniform terminology for predatory
publishing practices. The responsibility collectively lies with journal editors, institutions
and organizations. Educators and researchers should avoid publishing in deceptive
or parodical (spoofy) journals and help raise the standards of legitimate, low-quality
journals. It is time for the scientific community to decide which path to take: towards
deception or towards helping low-quality journals.