We all get them, some of us more than 10 a day, emails from journals suggesting we publish in their august pages. More often than not, these emails are not sent from Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine, but they seem eager to publish our research. How can we be certain that these are quality publications and not some scam? In the current publishing environment, with the revolution/evolution in on-line publishing offering so many new titles, how do we recognise which are reputable and will be well-received, ensuring that our work stands the test of time.
To achieve the best dissemination of our research efforts many of us seek to publish in Open Access journals, in fact many funding bodies demand that your work is only published in open access journals. Like subscription journals, open access journals run the gamut from reputable and well-regarded to little-known and menial. But, as open access publishers ask authors (or their institutions) to pay article processing charges to make the work open to all readers, the latter group of journals (little-known and sloppy) have the opportunity to make a good deal of money from authors. That opportunity is even bigger in the case of online-only journals. As observed, these journals (or the people behind them) actively solicit manuscripts, often through aggressive and misleading email campaigns, and lack transparency regarding their editorial processes. They do not adhere to established academic standards, posing risks to the credibility of scientific research. Researchers who unknowingly publish in such journals may harm their reputations and face difficulties in having their work recognized by reputable academic circles.
Enter Jeffrey Beall (academic librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver), hero of the hour, who observed that there is a group of open access publishers who can be considered less interested in your science than your money. The term he gave to this behaviour was 'predatory' and in response to the growing number of dubiously titled journals he created an online list of 'predatory publishers.' It seems that identifying predatory journals can be challenging, but they often exhibit red flags such as unrealistic promises of rapid publication, lack of credible editorial boards, or unclear peer-review processes. Many authors found it helpful to check his list before submitting an article to an open access journal. The blog, maintained since 2008, was taken down earlier this month. The reason for removal of the site is unclear but there have been rumours that threats and politics forced Beall to shut down the site.
Which journals should you consider submitting your articles to in the post-Beall universe? We provide some guidance on approaches to selecting your journal for publication in our latest Insider's Insight [1]. You can also find guidance within the literature itself, some articles are even open access [2]. Where Beall's list was a blacklist there are white lists widely available. These lists identify journals and publishers that follow established, recognised standards in open access publishing — for example the Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) or the membership list for the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (www.oaspa.org/membership/members). If a journal is listed in the DOAJ, or the publisher is a member of OASPA, authors can be assured that the journal to which they're submitting follows responsible publishing practices. However, these are not independent voices — "choose well young Skywalker".
The scale and characteristics of the predatory publishing phenomenon have been well documented in research predating the shutdown of Beall's list. A comprehensive 2015 survey of the publishers and journals on Beall's list identified 891 active publishers and 7,726 journals with content as of January 2015, revealing that nearly half of these publishers operated only a single journal and that almost two-thirds of the journals had published 50 or fewer papers [3][10]. Strikingly, 90% of these potentially predatory journals targeted the science, technology, and medicine (STM) fields, with an analysis of author affiliations showing that India, the United States, and Nigeria were the top three contributing countries, together accounting for approximately 50% of articles sampled [3][10]. This concentration in STM disciplines was corroborated by another 2015 analysis, which found that 74% of journals on Beall's list were exclusively STEM-focused, with the largest representations in Technology & Engineering (41.8%) and Health Sciences (30.1%) [4]. The growth trajectory of this issue was also steep; one analysis noted that the number of predatory publishers skyrocketed from just 18 in 2011 to an estimated 700 by 2015, a growth rate approaching 4000% [7]. This rapid expansion was paralleled by the emergence of even more deceptive practices, such as ‘hijacked journals,’ which counterfeit the names and ISSNs of legitimate publications, growing from three titles in 2011 to 90 by 2015 [7].
In contrast to the volatile landscape of blacklists, whitelists like the DOAJ have provided a more stable and systematically vetted alternative. The value of the DOAJ as a quality filter was significantly enhanced following a major 2013 initiative to tighten its inclusion criteria and re-evaluate all indexed journals. A 2017 study examining the results of this process found that out of 12,595 journals evaluated, 3,776 were removed from the directory [2]. Crucially, 375 journals were excluded specifically for ethical issues, and 158 of the removed journals were found on Beall's lists, demonstrating a clear overlap between the DOAJ's quality enforcement and the identification of problematic publishers [2]. Furthermore, the study confirmed that thanks to the new, rigorous screening process, the journals remaining in the DOAJ showed a noticeable improvement in editorial quality and reliability [2]. Similarly, membership in the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) serves as a mark of commitment to best practices. OASPA's membership criteria, established in 2008, require organizations to demonstrate adherence to rigorous peer review and ethical standards, and by late 2016, key open access infrastructure providers like the Public Knowledge Project were joining to show their support for these principles [5][6][9]. Therefore, in the absence of Beall's list, authors are encouraged to consult these curated whitelists and to refer to published guides on navigating the publishing landscape, such as the practical criteria for identifying reputable journals available in the literature [1][11].
References
- Niche Science & Technology (2015). Insider's Insight. Guidance on approaches to selecting your journal for publication.
- Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A, Mitchell D. Helping journals to improve: a look back at the DOAJ re-evaluation process. Insights. 2017;30(2):29-35.
- Shen C, Björk BC. 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.
- Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Galipeau J, Avey MT, et al. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549(7670):23-25.
- Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Current Members [Internet]. The Hague: OASPA;
- Redhead C. OASPA Welcomes New Members [Internet]. The Hague: OASPA
- Dadkhah M, Maliszewski T, Jazi MD. Characteristics of Hijacked Journals. Account Res. 2016;23(6):333-48.
- Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179.
- Public Knowledge Project (PKP). PKP Joins OASPA [Internet]. Vancouver: PKP; 2016
- Björk BC. Have the "predatory" publishers grown? A longitudinal study of their size and geographical distribution. In: 19th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; 2014 Sep 3-5; Leiden, Netherlands. Leiden: CWTS; 2014. p. 38-40. (Note: This conference paper is a precursor to the 2015 Shen & Björk study, supporting the 2014 data point mentioned).
- Hardman TC, Serginson JM. Ready! Aim! Fire! targeting the right medical science journal. Cardiovascular Endocrinology 2017; 6(3): 95-100
