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

• 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

• Hijacked journals imitate legitimate publications, misleading researchers into paying for non-peer-reviewed work.
• To combat hijacking, publishers should secure their websites and regularly check the accuracy of online listings. Researchers can use tools like Think Check Submit and Retraction Watch’s Hijacked Journal Checker to confirm journal authenticity.

Journal hijacking, in which fraudulent websites impersonate legitimate journals, is an ongoing threat to academic publishing. Hijacked journals deceive researchers into paying fees to publish work that is not peer reviewed, risking reputational damage for both the researcher and the legitimate journal that has been targeted. But what, if anything, can be done? A recent Nature Index article by Jackson Ryan delved into the issues.

The scale of the problem

Economist Anna Abalkina has tracked more than 250 hijacking cases for Retraction Watch over the past 4 years. The tactics used by hijackers include:

• taking over expired domain names to create fake journal websites
• using fake URLs that closely mimic legitimate journals
• creating a website to steal the identity of a journal that lacks an online presence.

Victims across academic publishing

Ryan describes the impact of hijacking on researchers and publishers alike. While duped researchers can see their academic reputation and careers damaged, publishers that fall victim to hijacking can be forced to expend large amounts of time trying to correct the record. The journal International Development Planning Review (IDPR) was hijacked in late 2023. Despite the publisher’s efforts to have the fake site delisted by Google, it remained in top search results for months. In another case, the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems was hijacked by hackers altering its URL on Scopus. By the time the URL was corrected, hundreds of fake articles had been published under the journal’s name. A common theme among affected publishers is frustration with slow responses from tech companies and online platforms.

A common theme among affected publishers is frustration with slow responses from tech companies and online platforms.

What can we do?

Ryan outlines the debate among experts as to whether much can be done to prevent journal hijacking. Dr Dan Hammett, co-editor of IDPR, is sceptical that it can ever be avoided. However, he and others believe that implementing stronger security measures could significantly reduce the risk.  Publishers are urged to strengthen website security, register alternative domains themselves to prevent hijackers from exploiting them, and regularly check journal listings on search engines and platforms such as Scopus. Meanwhile, researchers are encouraged to use tools like Think Check Submit and The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker to confirm journal authenticity.

————————————————–

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.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The reasons why researchers submit to predatory journals are multifactorial.
• Institutions can counter the rise of predatory journals by educating researchers, fostering collaboration, and broadening evaluation criteria to reduce the pressure to publish.

Predatory journals pose a significant threat to scientific integrity, yet researchers continue to submit their work to them. In a recent Nature World View article, Professor Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri explores the motivations behind researchers’ decisions to submit to predatory journals and suggests strategies for institutions to combat this issue.

Prof. Boukacem-Zeghmouri’s study in The Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science surveyed 2,200 researchers who had authored articles in journals by the publisher OMICS. This publisher was ordered in 2018 to pay $50.1 million to the US government for “unfair and deceptive practices”. Many of the 86 survey respondents were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Some admitted to knowingly submitting to predatory journals, possibly viewing them as a means to succeed in an unfair academic system. Alternatively, authors may unknowingly fall into the trap of predatory publishing because of language barriers or limited knowledge of publishing standards, with changing open access models further complicating matters.

Authors may unknowingly fall into the trap of predatory publishing because of language barriers or limited knowledge of publishing standards.

Prof. Boukacem-Zeghmouri proposes several approaches that institutions could adopt to help prevent this:

• Provide education on scholarly publishing norms and guidance on navigating the complex publishing landscape, especially for researchers in LMICs.
• Offer resources, such as the Think Check Submit checklist, in local languages and forums for knowledge exchange to empower researchers and reduce their vulnerability to predatory publishers.
• Create partnerships between institutions in LMICs and wealthier countries to facilitate access to reputable publications and integration within the global scientific community.
• Alleviate the pressure to publish by broadening the criteria for evaluating researchers beyond publications and acknowledging contributions in teaching, outreach, and other knowledge-sharing activities.

Prof. Boukacem-Zeghmouri highlights the open access publishing model in Latin America as an example of how things can be done successfully, with local open access journals that are recognised by the entire research ecosystem. She concludes that by creating a supportive environment that prioritises research integrity, institutions can protect researchers from exploitation and ensure that legitimate research reaches the world, advancing scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Hijacked journals imitate authentic journals and breach research ethics by publishing plagiarised, fabricated, or non-peer reviewed papers.
• Over 60 hijacked journals have been identified in the indexing database Scopus, prompting Elsevier to remove all source homepage links from the database.

Journal hijacking is an increasingly recognised form of publishing fraud, in which the identity of legitimate journals is stolen. Many papers in hijacked journals have been found to be plagiarised, fabricated, or published without peer review. But just how concerned should we be?

A ScienceInsider article by Jeffrey Brainard highlighted a recent study revealing that 67 hijacked journals were documented in the renowned scholarly database Scopus up to September 2023. Of these journals:

• 33 had indexed unauthorised content
• 23 had compromised the journal’s homepage link
• 11 had done both.

These hijacked journals represent a small minority of the more than 27,000 active, peer-reviewed journals indexed in Scopus. Nevertheless, Anna Abalkina, the study author, argues that the indexing of hijacked journals in scholarly databases can have far-reaching effects. Unauthorised content may be cited and thus imported into other databases, corrupting the scholarly record.

Indexing of hijacked journals in scholarly databases can have far-reaching effects. Unauthorised content may be cited and thus imported into other databases, corrupting the scholarly record.

In order to create an illusion of authenticity, journal hijackers often use or mimic a legitimate journal’s title, ISSN, and other metadata. They then use a variety of methods to infiltrate indexing databases, known as ‘indexjacking’, including:

• compromising a journal’s homepage link to instead link to a cloned website
• hacking the website of a legitimate journal
• registering an expired domain of a legitimate journal
• targeting print-only journals with inactive or unestablished homepage links.

In response to Abalkina’s study, Elsevier launched an investigation into the journals in question and confirmed that they had already removed 13 illicit journal homepage links from Scopus. In December 2023, the publisher went a step further and announced the decision to remove all source homepage links from the database. However, Abalkina cautions that this may not be enough to prevent hijacked journals from infiltrating databases, and encourages researchers to also use the Hijacked Journal Checker she launched in 2022 in partnership with Retraction Watch.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In a recent ISMPP poll, medical publication professionals were asked “What would you do?” when presented with a challenging hypothetical scenario.
• In the scenario, a manuscript had been inadvertently submitted to a predatory journal. The majority of respondents opted to seek legal advice, attempt to retract the manuscript (even if this was made difficult by the predatory journal), and submit the article elsewhere.

Despite widespread recognition that predatory journals are a threat to research credibility, there is no consensus on the best course of action if study sponsors or authors fall prey to them. A recent poll from the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) asked publication professionals how they would deal with this sticky situation. Dr Eric Y Wong (Janssen) discussed the poll’s findings in the MAP newsletter, providing additional insight and recommendations.

The poll asked: You are a medical publication professional and have been supporting a client with a secondary manuscript for a Phase 3 study. You recommended target journals and worked with the author team throughout the submission process. After publication, it becomes apparent that the manuscript was submitted to a predatory journal. Unfortunately, the journal has no retraction policy and asks for a large sum of money in processing fees to retract the article. The authors have signed a copyright agreement giving the journal full copyright of the manuscript.

What would you do?

The results of the poll, which was answered by 72 respondents, were:

• Request the editorial office to retract the manuscript and seek legal advice from the sponsor company; at the same time plan a resubmission to another journal: 56.9%
• Suggest that the authors add some new and substantive data to support submission to a new, reputable journal as a secondary publication: 20.8%
• Working with co-authors, write a response to the journal highlighting their policies and exposing them as a predatory journal and showcase this letter via authors’ social media channels: 16.7%
• Recommend against retraction as this can negatively impact reputation, and review the copyright agreement to determine if you are able to submit elsewhere, such as to a preprint server: 5.6%

Dr Wong agreed that the option selected by most respondents was the most reasonable course of action in this difficult situation. Seeking legal advice is vital, particularly as copyright ownership is in question. While paying a retraction fee may be the quickest route to an initial resolution, Dr Wong warned of potential challenges in recouping this fee at a later stage, as contact and personnel details for predatory publishers are “often not available or fictitious”. He remarked that the other poll options would not resolve the primary concern for the authors, ie, that doubt may be cast on study credibility due to association with a disreputable journal.

Prevention is better than cure; hence, despite the challenges associated with identifying predatory journals, Dr Wong recommends that medical publication professionals maintain a comprehensive list of legitimate journals. Moreover, Good Publication Practice guidance states:

“If the credibility of a journal or conference cannot be reasonably ascertained, it should be avoided.”

Dr Wong therefore calls on publication professionals to remain vigilant and to carefully assess new journals.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Unawareness and unethical motivations are the main reasons authors cite for publishing in predatory journals.
• Proposed strategies to combat predatory publishing include improving education on publication ethics, creating new, credible publishing platforms, enhancing accountability through open peer review, and tightening regulation of journal recommendation lists.

Predatory journals are a deep-rooted issue in open access publishing, contributing an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014 alone. Despite their widespread presence, the motivations that drive authors toward these journals remain largely unknown. The topic is explored in Chapter 7 of Simon Linacre’s book, The Predator Effect: Understanding the Past, Present and Future of Deceptive Academic Journals. An excerpt from the chapter is available on Retraction Watch.

A review of the limited literature on author motivations highlighted 2 main reasons authors opt for predatory journals:

• lack of awareness about a journal’s dubious reputation
• unethical motivations, including incentives tied to career advancement and disillusionment with traditional academic publishing.

Studies looking at why authors might be tempted to engage with predatory publishers identified several factors that likely influence their decisions.

• Push factors:
  • pressure to publish to meet institutional expectations or funding requirements
  • fear of career stagnation or job loss if publishing targets are not met
  • high costs associated with publishing in reputable open access journals
  • limited options for open access platforms
  • desire to avoid loss of work following unsuccessful submission to legitimate, indexed journals.
• Pull factors:
  • fast turnaround time
  • false claims; eg, that a predatory journal is indexed in a known database
  • soliciting emails
  • perception of higher acceptance rates compared with indexed journals
  • inclusion of predatory journals in lists used for publication recommendation (whitelists).

One proposed strategy to tackle the problem is to educate researchers about the issues with predatory journals and review how incentives can tempt authors to publish in them. Other recommendations include:

• establishing new, legitimate publishing outlets to provide safer platforms for researchers, especially those from developing countries
• enhancing accountability through open peer review
• treating predatory journal publication as misconduct to emphasise the importance of rigorous peer review
• strengthening regulations to prevent predatory journals from infiltrating whitelists.

Linacre suggests that third-party help may also be needed to support academic authors in successful research publication.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The production of fraudulent articles by paper mills is on the increase.
• Papermill Alarm is a new software tool that can screen submitted manuscripts for similarities to known bogus articles.

The submission of journal articles produced by illegal paper mills is a common problem in scientific publishing, and such articles can be difficult to identify. In a recent Nature News article, Holly Else highlights a new tool, ‘Papermill Alarm’, that could be adopted in the fight against bogus content.

Paper mills are paid to produce fake manuscripts that appear similar to legitimate research papers. Developed by Adam Day, Papermill Alarm is a software tool that can analyse the titles and abstracts of scientific papers to assess their similarity to previously identified fraudulent articles. Although not providing definitive proof that an article has been produced by a paper mill, the tool does flag those that may warrant further investigation.

Using Papermill Alarm, Day determined that 1% of PubMed articles contain text similar to those produced by paper mills.

Using Papermill Alarm, Day determined that 1% of PubMed articles contain text similar to those produced by paper mills, with a prior report from the UK Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggesting the figure may be at least 2%, and up to 46% in certain journals.

Several publishers are reportedly interested in adopting Papermill Alarm as a screening tool for submitted manuscripts. Whilst the scientific impact of fraudulent articles produced by paper mills may be limited, given their low citations counts, they nevertheless retain the potential to damage the trust in, and reputation of, scientific research. As such, there is an urgent need for joint action by scholarly research stakeholders to address the thriving paper mill industry.

—————————————————–

With predatory publishing continuing to escalate, there is a need to evaluate the extent to which it has infiltrated academic practice. In a recent analysis of Scopus, a leading scholarly database, researchers found that almost 3% of indexed studies had been published in potentially predatory journals.

As highlighted in a recent Nature news article, researchers searched Scopus for the names of “potential, possible or probable” predatory journals and publishers identified by Beall (2016). A total of 324 suspected predatory journals were identified; these titles published over 160,000 articles between 2015–2017, accounting for 2.8% of the studies indexed during this period.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated problem — predatory journals have previously been found to be indexed on other databases such as PubMed. It is widely recognized that predatory publishing threatens research integrity, however defining “safelists” and “watchlists” isn’t easy and they are difficult to maintain as these journals constantly evolve their practices.

Although a spokesperson for Scopus told Nature that it has stopped indexing new content for 65% of flagged journals, old content remains. This means that their  citation counts still increase, and may continue to misinform important institutional decisions such as employee evaluation and funding. The authors of the analysis suggest that the current filters used to assess journals are proving ineffective against the more convincing predatory journals, and call for fact checking and upgraded selection criteria to address the issue.

They warn that “unless the selection criteria are upgraded and/or the bar for inclusion is raised significantly, fake scientific journals will keep creeping in the database”.

We look forward to seeing how scholarly databases adapt to this evolving threat.

After reading the article, click here for a brief survey and to receive your authorization code for your Credit Tracker. This serves as documentation for the activity.

——————————————————–

——————————————————–