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.

————————————————