KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Legitimate open access and predatory journals are being conflated by some established actors, attempting to preserve legacy publishing.
• Understanding how to identify a true predatory journal is essential to maintaining scientific integrity.

With the rise in open access publishing, the presence of predatory journals has become a notable issue. However, in a Research Information article, Professor Emmanuel Andrès addresses labelling of legitimate open access journals as predatory by some in the publishing ecosystem.

Many accused journals have robust editorial standards and are indexed in respected databases like PubMed and DOAJ. So, why are they regarded as predatory? Prof. Andrès describes how some established actors have weaponised the term ‘predatory’ to exclude newcomers and protect the monopoly of legacy journals.

Open access versus exclusivity

Open access publishing can be affordable, accessible, and quick, enabling a broader range of individuals to publish, including those:

• new to research
• from non-elite universities or under-funded institutions
• from under-represented regions.

Historically, only a select few had the means to publish, largely due to the costs associated with legacy journals. Some may consider open access to result in a loss of publishing prestige. Prof. Andrès highlights that some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a “convenient label” to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity. On the contrary, Prof. Andrès says questioning the legitimacy of “all open access, fast-review, digitally native journals…is an intellectual laziness we can no longer afford”.

“Some established actors are terming any open access journal ‘predatory’ as a ‘convenient label’ to dismiss them, in an attempt to preserve publishing exclusivity”

Where can we draw the line?

Prof. Andrès notes that true predatory journals remain a significant threat to academic publishing. To help detect them, Prof. Andrès highlights 6 key characteristics to look out for:

• no transparent fee structure
• no visible or citable articles that can be corrected when necessary
• no clear peer review and editorial policies
• not indexed in recognised databases
• not a member of COPE
• not aligned with the Think.Check.Submit checklist.

While ‘predatory’ warns the research community of fraudulent journals, terming any journal that challenges traditional publishing  as such can be just as damaging. Before dismissing an open access journal branded as predatory, Prof. Andrès urges us to consider: is this truly fraudulent or is it just an outsider?

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Traditional metrics like impact factor still influence journal selection and engagement, despite their limitations in assessing research quality.
• Enhanced publication content, including graphical abstracts and plain language summaries, improves healthcare professional engagement.

In an article for The MAP newsletter, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Radhika Bhatia, and Sarah J Clements highlight the importance of adopting novel metrics and enhanced publication content (EPC) to improve healthcare professional (HCP) engagement with scientific publications.

Re-evaluating journal metrics

In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, traditional metrics like impact factor continue to dominate journal selection and readership decisions, despite their well-documented limitations. A survey conducted by Clements and colleagues, presented at the 2024 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, revealed that 57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish. However, such metrics do not always reflect the true value or reach of research.

57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish.

To move away from this outdated method of research assessment, publication professionals must advocate for a shift towards more diverse and transparent metrics, as outlined by the Declaration on Research Assessment. Additionally, efforts should focus on encouraging HCPs to engage with a more varied pool of publications, select appropriate target journals, and promote open access.

The EPC effect: more engagement, more impact

Elsewhere, the survey identified that graphical abstracts, plain language summaries, video summaries, and other forms of EPC are powerful tools for boosting engagement. 38.8% of HCPs are more likely to read publications with EPC, and research has also shown that articles featuring EPC tend to receive higher Altmetric scores and experience increased social media engagement than those without.

Despite the benefits, barriers such as development time, strict journal guidelines, and the fact that not all journals offer EPC options continue to hinder their broader implementation.

To enhance EPC impact and adoption, the authors recommend:

1. Educating HCPs on the importance of EPC and how to create it
2. Encouraging journals that have yet to implement EPC to adopt it
3. Advocating for standardised inclusion of EPC across journals

The authors identified future areas for exploration, including how EPC can influence clinical decision-making and patient education. By prioritising a more rigorous research evaluation process and promoting opportunities to implement EPC, the medical publishing industry can better support knowledge dissemination, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ScholCommLab research shows that preprint servers are implementing more moderation measures as they attempt to improve preprint credibility.
• The authors warn against compromising the very attributes that make preprints invaluable, namely “speed, accessibility, and low barriers to entry”.

A recent article by the London School of Economics examined the challenges associated with enhancing preprint credibility. Research by ScholCommLab suggests that attempts to mitigate the dissemination of unchecked content through increased moderation may risk undermining the accessibility and speed that make preprints such a valuable method of sharing scientific information.

Preprint credibility concerns

The authors remind us of how preprints emerged as an essential tool for the rapid dissemination of new information throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While preprints were covered by the media at “an unprecedented rate” during that time, journalists are now being more selective about their use due to concerns around lack of peer review. Arguably, one of the most significant barriers to broader preprint adoption is the concept that they are of lesser quality and not as reliable as peer-reviewed articles. Critics also question their potential for circulating misinformation, which ultimately damages public trust in science.

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price.

Measures to improve preprint credibility

ScholCommLab’s findings from interviews with preprint server managers strongly refute any claims that servers allow the spread of unchecked information. Rather, they have “a strong sense of responsibility toward their communities, the scholarly record, and the public” and feel under pressure to screen preprints for flawed content that could be misleading. As such, servers are introducing more and more measures to address concerns over credibility, including:

• methods and data reporting badges
• community endorsements
• annotations
• aligning more closely with peer-reviewed journals’ editorial workflows.

The downsides of increased moderation

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price, such as by:

• restricting preprints to manuscripts or other formats congruent with journal peer review
• slowing the availability of new research
• reducing economic viability
• undermining the core strengths associated with preprints (ie, “openness, flexibility, and accessibility”)
• excluding “disadvantaged researchers”, such as those at the beginning of their career and/or at less established institutions.

The authors emphasise the importance of ensuring that preprints’ benefits are not diminished, and ask the community to consider the implications of gatekeeping methods, particularly in relation to future global health crises.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The ICMJE has strengthened its guidance on how to detect predatory journals.
• Sharing knowledge of predatory journals – what they are, how they operate, and known entities of concern – within the scientific community is key to tackling predatory journals.

Predatory journals are an enduring and growing issue in open access publishing, with at least 15,000 estimated globally in 2021. Pseudo- or predatory journals intentionally misrepresent themselves for financial gain, and authors continue to fall prey to them, believing their authenticity or following unethical motivators linked to the pressure to publish. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has recently updated its guidance on how publishers and authors can protect themselves, along with the release of a dedicated editorial authored by Professor Christine Laine and colleagues.

Detecting a predatory journal

Predatory journals may employ clever tricks to appear legitimate, such as:

• using similar names to well-established journals
• using faked editorial boards
• fabricating indexing and citation records
• claiming membership of respected publication bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Authors should be aware of hallmark behaviours identifying predatory journals, including:

• lack of transparency about fees
• absent peer review processes
• promise of rapid turnaround
• failure to respond to queries in a timely manner.

The editorial also recommends taking the following steps:

• Use the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist of features associated with trusted journals and publishers.
• Carefully check email addresses and URLs for discrepancies with the claimed sender.
• Forward any invitations to submit papers or to join an editorial board to the legitimate journal, to verify the source.

How can we tackle predatory journals?

The key to tackling predatory publishing is raising awareness of these journals and their tactics. Prof. Laine and colleagues note information about journals of concern should be shared with the scientific community, including with the journals who have been imitated, who may alert their readership or pursue legal action.

“The key to tackling predatory publishing is raising awareness of these journals and their tactics.”

The authors remind us that all stakeholders must take action to protect the scientific community – and the wider public – from the dangers of predatory journals.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Free-to-publish, free-to-read diamond OA may improve equity in publication opportunities, but uptake may be held back as authors are attracted to non-diamond journals with an established reputation.
• Questions remain around whether diamond OA will reduce the costs of publishing overall.

Open access (OA) is key to making research more accessible, with gold OA ever-growing: it accounted for 42% of Web of Science-indexed publications in 2023. In a recent article in Research Professional News, published by Clarivate, Ulrich Herb and Benedikt Schmal highlight that gold OA is no stranger to scrutiny. Article processing charges (APCs) can pose equity issues, and transformative agreements have not shifted the OA landscape as hoped. Diamond OA, providing both free-to-publish and free-to-read articles, has been hailed as a solution by funders, libraries, and OA advocates; however, it may not provide a complete fix.

Money, money, money

Herb and Schmal debate whether, on balance, diamond OA will lower the costs of publishing compared with the current landscape. They note that journals have many costs, including:

• managing peer review, editing, and quality control
• operational infrastructure
• indexing and archiving
• training and capacity building
• marketing and outreach.

Despite this long list, Herb and Schmal suggest that many assume large commercial publishers and non-profit outfits have the same costs. Think again. Diamond OA publishers are unlikely to replicate economies of scale at larger publishers, so face higher costs. By their nature, non-profit publishers also lack motivations to reduce costs to widen profit margins.

Is reputation everything?

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity. With reputation often a key factor in journal selection, the authors question whether there is sufficient appetite for new diamond OA journals: these would need to compete with established rivals to build their reputation and gain broader appeal.

Diamond OA levels the financial playing field for authors, but Herb and Schmal ask whether this will truly provide equity.

Herb and Schmal push for a pragmatic assessment of diamond OA models to establish their viability and sustainability – or note that OA advocates once again risk disappointment.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Plan S architects cOAlition S have released the results of a global consultation on their latest open access proposal, “Towards Responsible Publishing”.
• Broad support exists for preprint posting, permissive licensing, and open peer review, while challenges remain around incentives, infrastructure, and implementation.

Earlier this year, cOAlition S welcomed the findings of a consultation with global stakeholders on their “Towards Responsible Publishing” (TRP) proposal. A detailed report reveals broad support for aspects such as preprint posting, the use of permissive licences, and open peer review, yet challenges remain.  

The proposal

Originally published last year, TRP builds on the principles of Plan S, which calls for the academic community to move towards “full and immediate” open access. cOAlition S proposes to reform academic publishing away from “highly inequitable” funding models, such as subscription charges and (over time) article processing charges (APCs), towards a scholar-led publishing ecosystem. These principles are aimed at allowing authors to decide when and what to publish.

The consultation

Over 11,600 respondents contributed to the consultation, including:

• 440 responses to an initial stakeholder feedback survey
• 72 focus group participants
• 11,145 responses to an online global researcher survey.

The report acknowledges that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were underrepresented in the initial stakeholder feedback survey data. To mitigate this, the report authors solicited 10 organisational feedback letters from LMICs.

Key findings

There was general support across regions and academic disciplines for:

• preprint posting, to increase research transparency
• permissive licensing, albeit with some concerns that open licence adoption is imposed by funders rather than the academic community
• open peer review (where reports are published alongside a published article), with a preference for reviewer anonymity.

Despite this support, the traditional journal ecosystem remains dominant, with researchers reliant on journal indexes and impact factors when deciding where to publish. The report suggests that researchers in LMICs may be more dependent on these metrics currently. Along with inequities in relation to APCs, this could lead to TRP being seen as an imposition by wealthier nations.

There was general support across regions and academic disciplines for preprint posting, permissive licensing, and open peer review.

The way forward

The report suggests that cOAlition S should pursue a phased approach to implementing TRP goals:

• Short term: encourage preprint posting and open licensing
• Medium term: promote open peer review
• Long term: reform incentives at a global scale to encourage open access publishing, and reallocate resources from legacy funding models towards scholar-led publishing infrastructure

cOAlition S aim to publish a full response to the findings by the end of 2024.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Researchers in less affluent countries report challenges getting APC discounts or waivers, posing barriers to OA publication.
• Tiered pricing and alternative funding models have been suggested to improve global equity in access to OA publication.

As scientific publishing shifts to open access (OA) models, authors—particularly in less affluent countries—face challenges paying article processing charges (APCs). A recent news feature in Science by Jeffrey Brainard highlights growing concerns about equity in OA.

Free to read, not free to publish

With ~50% of scientific papers now published under author-pays OA, 2023 saw gold and hybrid OA revenue triple for 6 large publishers versus 2019. This excludes potential reductions from discounts and waivers, relied on by many authors from low- and lower middle-income countries to publish OA. However, processes to obtain discounts or waivers can be complex, and they may not be offered by hybrid journals (who offer free, but paywalled, publication).

APCs can put financial strain on researchers worldwide when grant funding does not cover the fees: some even resort to paying from their own pocket. Brainard notes that when considering journal options likely to aid career advancement, authors in developed countries often prioritise journal reputation—one factor linked to higher APCs—over APC affordability. However, this may not be an option for scientists in developing regions. In the words of one researcher from Brazil, unaffordable APCs risk science from the Global South becoming “nonexistent”, perpetuating global disparities.

Unaffordable APCs risk science from the Global South becoming “nonexistent”, perpetuating global disparities.

Proposed solutions

Making journal articles both free to read and affordable to publish is challenging, but publishers are exploring alternatives to author-paid APCs. Potential solutions include:

• transformative agreements with institutions, allowing affiliated researchers to publish without paying APCs (and access paywalled content)
• tiered pricing based on a country’s wealth and purchasing power. While this would reduce APCs for many countries, costs would increase in wealthier nations if publishers offset lost revenue
• diamond OA, with government or philanthropic funding eliminating individual APCs. Brainard notes this has boosted OA publishing in some regions already, but absent impact factors for many journals can reduce the appeal.

Brainard highlights that OA publishing is actively changing: cOAlition S, Elsevier, and Springer Nature have introduced tiered pricing initiatives this year. We look forward to seeing how the OA landscape continues to evolve.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Delta Think has identified a “small” but “significant” drop in the percentage of open access articles published in 2023, following an 8-year period of sustained growth.
• Delta Think suggest this loss in open access market share could reflect authors moving away from fully open access publishers, given perceived quality issues in a subset of journals.

Hot on the heels of our recent article on the real-terms cost of article processing charges, we look at another report from Delta Think: open access (OA) market share has dropped for the first time since 2016.

According to preliminary results from Delta Think’s 2024 publisher survey, the volume of publications has been rising since 2016, with high OA growth rates dominating the market up to 2023. Following a “post-COVID spike”, growth has now slowed back down to long-term trends, with OA losing market share.  

2023 saw a “small” but “significant” loss in OA market share

Despite previously predicting that OA articles would make up over half the monetisable scholarly output by 2023, Delta Think found that between 2022 and 2023:

• total article output grew by 3.4%
• OA article output grew by 2.1%
• OA’s output share fell from 49% to 48%.

The decrease is a small but notable shift from the long-term trend of incremental gains in OA market share each year. For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output, representing “a reversal of long-term observations”.

For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output.

Why has OA lost market share?

Delta Think suggest that alongside a post-COVID return to long-term trends, underlying challenges experienced by OA publishers could be to blame. Authors’ concerns about quality due to paper mills, the rise of special editions, and removal of impact factors may have contributed to a shift away from fully OA publishers, despite these issues affecting only a minority of journals. Uncertainty around funder OA mandates may have also played a role.

Will OA bounce back?

Delta Think caution that it is too early to say, but expect OA growth may pick up again in 2024, at slightly lower levels than in recent years. They note that fully OA publishers still represent a fifth of the market’s output, with well-established hybrid publishers continuing to see growth in OA. Given the benefits of OA, we look forward to seeing whether OA uptake bounces back in 2024.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent survey by Delta Think saw article processing charges (APCs) for fully open access and hybrid journals rising by around 10% and 4%, respectively, between 2023–2024.
• Delta Think concludes that because APC increases are below the rate of inflation, these costs are becoming cheaper in real terms, with authors getting slightly more value for money than in previous years.

Article processing charges (APCs) and open access (OA) have certainly been hot topics here at the Publication Plan. While OA is considered essential for broadening the impact of scientific research globally, the APCs associated with gold OA can represent a barrier to publishing equity. Monitoring trends in APCs is, therefore, important. To that end, the Delta Think group run an annual survey of >30 key publishers to assess price changes. In a recent report, they explored the realities of APC increases after adjusting for inflation.

Using the global consumer price index (CPI) to examine whether APCs are becoming cheaper or more expensive in real terms, Delta Think found:

• APC list prices rose between 2023 and 2024, with increases of ~10% and ~4% for fully OA and hybrid journals, respectively.
• Real-term APCs for all OA journals (fully OA and hybrid) fell most years since 2017, with the exception of 2021 when large increases were seen alongside a modest inflation rate.
• Fully OA journals show a slightly different picture, with real-term APCs rising as often as they have fallen over the same time period.
• Above-inflation price rises for fully OA journals were particularly notable going into 2021 and 2024.

As context to their findings, the group highlight that the average inflation rate for this period (per the global CPI) was ~4%, spiking at >8% in 2022, with a prediction of ~6% for 2024.

Delta Think conclude that, overall, OA prices are rising, but not as fast as the rate of inflation, meaning the cost of OA is actually becoming cheaper, with authors getting slightly better value for money.

Delta Think conclude that, overall, OA prices are rising, but not as fast as the rate of inflation, meaning the cost of OA is actually becoming cheaper, with authors getting slightly better value for money. They note that while the prices of fully OA journals are increasing faster than inflation, these remain cheaper than hybrid prices and are thus growing from a lower starting point. Finally, Delta Think call upon authors to be mindful of this detail: if concerns exist around OA affordability, understanding real-term costs is key.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The rise of online-only, open access publishing inadvertently spawned a parasite industry of predatory journals.
• AI, checklists, critical appraisal by authors, and registers of respectable open access journals can all help protect scientific integrity.

Predatory journals aim to lure unaware, unscrupulous, or disillusioned authors, ensnaring their research and money. In an editorial for the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, Editor-in-Chief Are Brean describes how a “tidal wave” of increasingly sophisticated predatory journals is degrading trust in science. Over at Medscape, Neurology Editor-in-Chief José Merino and host Andrew Wilner discuss how to identify legitimate, peer reviewed journals in the era of online-only, open access publishing. Read on for a summary of their top tips.

Apex predators

Brean warns that predatory journals have come a long way since librarian Jeffrey Beall coined the term in 2008. Modern predators may:

• use names that look like those of established journals
• list reputable scientists as colleagues (without their knowledge)
• use counterfeit indexing in recognised databases
• be linked to paper mills
• ‘hijack’ legitimate journals via URL fraud.

Open access fees: when are they a red flag?

Article processing charges (APCs) are a recognised and established funding model in open access scientific publishing, and most journals are now online only. So, in this environment, how can researchers tell the difference between a legitimate journal and a fraud? Brean and Merino make the following suggestions:

• Critically assess the journal’s credentials. Ask yourself:

1. Have you heard of this journal? Has anybody you know published there?
2. Does the journal have a track record? When was it established?
3. Is it supported by a recognisable publisher?
4. Is it accessible?

• Read a sample of the journal’s output. Are the articles ‘interesting, credible, and of good quality’?
• Use a free checklist.
• Ask your medical librarian for guidance.
• Consult a register of reputable journals such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Defence mechanisms

Brean also suggests that artificial intelligence could be used to expose predatory journals. Research in this area is ongoing.

For now, the editors encourage (human) authors and researchers to be careful and critical. Don’t get caught in the predatory publishing trap.

————————————————–