An integrated paradigm shift to deal with ‘predatory publishing’
Section snippets
Researchers continue to use Jeffrey Beall’s blacklist and predatory criteria despite their many deficiencies
This article discusses how, even about a decade after Jeffrey Beall coined the term ‘predatory publishing’, his blacklists and ‘predatory criteria’ continue to remain at the heart of scholarly publishing and librarianship. We take our discussion further by indicating that those blacklists, and the criteria that were used to establish them, have – to some extent – misled academics, policy-makers, editors and even publishers regarding how, and why, an open access (OA) journal or publisher may be
Sole reliance on Beall’s blacklists for assessing ‘predatory publishing’ may be inaccurate
Retrospectively, quantitative analyses that were based on Beall's blacklists prior to January of 2017 were thus potentially flawed, as are any studies that were conducted between 2017 and 2021. In this section, we focus on studies that used Beall's blacklists, relying entirely or partially on those blacklists to draw behavioral conclusions about individual academics or groups of academics, universities, countries, cultural groups, etc., to somehow claim that they may somehow be “inferior”
How to move beyond the Beall ideology and blacklists?
It is incredulous that almost five years after the closure of Beall's blog and blacklists, academics continue to rely on those sources of potential misinformation. In this section, we look at possible alternatives, their strengths and weaknesses, in order to look beyond the Beall-based influence in academic publishing.
A paradigm shift in thinking is required
Chirico (2017) stated (p. 186) that “not all articles published in legitimate journals are good, because sometimes legitimate peer review fails to identify weak or fraudulent papers”. Marco-Cuenca et al. (2021) showed that more than 75% of fraudulent articles in the European Union were published in journals included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) and had an IF, suggesting that the issue of “predatory” publishing is not only restricted to OA journals, much less to journals or publishers on
Other possible complimentary solutions to avoid ‘predatory publishing’
Even if academics rely on blacklists and whitelists for guidance, this alone is not enough for them to survive the increasingly cut-throat world of academic publishing. Authors' must assume personal responsibility to ensure that they avoid truly “predatory” publishing venues because they may lead to unethical publishing and unsafe clinical practices that may adversely affect their careers (Rupp et al., 2019). For this reason, criteria need to be debated and refined, as we have done in Table 1.
Conclusion and limitations
Although ‘predatory publishing’ is currently a big problem in academia, blacklisting or whitelisting are not, in themselves, viable solutions. Such lists have been and continue to be used, but they have failed to some extent, such as Beall's blacklists, which has been the main focus of this paper. Banning “predatory” journals (Beall, 2016), even more so when relying on Beall's blacklists and their flawed criteria (Table 1), does not resolve the problem because current lists of “predatory”
Funding
None.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
The first author conceived the first round of ideas, and wrote the first draft. All authors fortified and contributed to all subsequent drafts and take collective responsibility for the content. All authors are co-corresponding authors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. Daniel Graziotin (Institute of Software Technology, University of Stuttgart, Germany) for sharing his ideas and interpretations of the topic of “predatory publishing” on an earlier version of the paper, and for providing some useful suggestions. The authors also thank the input and critical feedback provided by Prof. Panagiotis Tsigaris (Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC, Canada) on a more recent version of the paper.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this paper reflect those exclusively of the authors, and should not be construed as the opinion of the organizations they work for.
References (122)
- et al.
How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall's lists of predatory journals on academic publishing
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
(2021) - et al.
PubMed should raise the bar for journal inclusion
The Lancet
(2017) - et al.
Predatory open access in rehabilitation
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
(2017) - et al.
Beall’s list removed: What stands between us and open access predators?
American Journal of Medicine
(2017) - et al.
Truthiness, the illusory truth effect, and the role of need for cognition
Consciousness and Cognition
(2020) - et al.
"Evidence-based checklists" for identifying predatory journals have not been assessed for reliability or validity: An analysis and proposal for moving forward
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
(2021) - et al.
Alternative metrics (“altmetrics”) for assessing article impact in popular general radiology journals
Academic Radiology
(2017) Open access publication: Academic colonialism or knowledge philanthropy?
Geoforum
(2021)Predatory publishing: What are the alternatives to Beall’s list?
American Journal of Medicine
(2018)How to choose where to publish your work
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
(2017)
The transformative power of values-enacted scholarship
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
The teaching researcher: Faculty attitudes towards the teaching and research roles
European Journal of Engineering Education
All publishers are predatory – some are bigger than others
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências
Predatory Journals and Predatory Publishers – Challenges within the Publishing Sector
Re-envisioning paradigms of education: Towards awareness, alignment, and pluralism
Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice
The open-access movement is not really about open access
tripleC
Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record
Nature
What I learned from predatory publishers
Biochemia Medica
Open access, research communities, and a defense against predatory journals
Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited?
Publications
Who’s afraid of peer review?
Science
Alternative article-level metrics
EMBO Reports
Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing
Nature
Cabells predatory report criteria v 1.1
Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: The salience of quality
Studies in Higher Education
Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education
Management in Education
“Predatory journals” or “predatory scholars”? The essential role of the peer review process
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Predator in the pool? A quantitative evaluation of non-indexed open access journals in aquaculture research
Frontiers in Marine Science
What is a predatory journal? A scoping review
F1000Research
‘Trust me’: The other problem with 87% of Beall’s lists
Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: A systematic review
BMC Medicine
Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing it!
Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin
Badges? We don’t need no stinking preprint badges!
How reliable and useful is Cabell’s blacklist? A data-driven analysis
LIBER Quarterly
Avoiding predatory journals and questionable conferences: A resource guide
The false academy: Predatory publishing in science and bioethics
Medical Health Care Philosophy
Time to stop talking about ‘predatory journals’
Learned Publishing
The DOAJ spring cleaning 2016 and what was removed – tragic loss or good riddance?
Publications
Replication crisis or an opportunity to improve scientific production?
European Journal of Education
Predatory nursing journals: A case study of author prevalence and characteristics
Nursing Ethics
A critical review on altmetrics: Can we measure the social impact factor?
Insights Imaging
Article-level metrics
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Managing the teaching–research nexus: Ideals and practice in research-oriented universities
Higher Education Research & Development
Predatory journals: No definition, no defence
Nature
Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Status of editing and publishing of scholarly journals by academic societies of science and technology in Korea
Journal of Korean Medical Science
Avoiding predatory publishers in the post-beall world: Tips for writers and editors
AMWA Journal
Built to last! Embedding open science principles and practice into European universities
Insights
The baffling disappearance of Beall’s blog (www.Scholarlyoa.com): Reasons revealed
Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal)
Open access publishing and peer review: Problems and solutions
Manipal Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Cited by (23)
An artificial intelligence tool misclassifies sport science journals as predatory
2024, Journal of Science and Medicine in SportWhat does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing?
2023, Journal of Professional NursingStatus, limitations, and challenges of blue carbon studies in the Philippines: A bibliographic analysis
2023, Regional Studies in Marine ScienceAn analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement
2023, Journal of DentistryCitation Excerpt :Moreover, while Beall's list is easily accessible, it has been criticized for being operated by one person [23]. A number of Beall's criteria were criticized for being potentially vague (example: “demonstrates lack of transparency in publishing operations”) and not necessarily an indicator of predatory behavior (example: “the editorial board engages in gender bias”) [24]. Furthermore, Beall's list requires regular update to match the proliferation rate of predatory journals.
Cabells' Predatory Reports criteria: Assessment and proposed revisions
2023, Journal of Academic LibrarianshipWhat is going on within google earth engine? A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, Remote Sensing Applications: Society and EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :Such a high publishing activity of MDPI has opened a controversial debate in the scientific editorial system with the appearance of so-called “predatory” journals based on the gold open access model, where certain journals prioritises quantity over quality (Beall, 2021; Oviedo-García, 2021). Several authors suggest implementing a reward-based review of academic publishing, supported by a set of trusted criteria-based guidance system, rather than proposing blocklisting systems, which often have insufficient specific and overly broad criteria and a certain subjectivity (Dony et al., 2020; Teixeira da Silva et al., 2022). About citation metrics related to methods and applications, a citation ratio (cites by publication) was also applied, but, in this case, this task was more complex, due to the fact that the same article may use several methods and applications, as explained in sections 3.4 and 3.5.