Predatory Publishing

Predatory or fraudulent publishing is a profitable business practice where authors are mislead into publishing in journals that are falsely represented as scholarly, reputable, and impactful. Additional appeal to authors includes promises of quality peer review and a fast publication timeline.

Predatory publishers use an open access (OA) publishing model where an author pays an article processing charge or APC to have their article published in an open access journal. Unlike most open access journals, however, these journals lack credibility and do not meet established standards in academic publishing.

While appealing to researchers facing demands for increasing numbers of publications, publishing in a predatory journal can damage a researcher's reputation and jeopardize their future opportunities for collaboration, funding, and tenure. 

On a broader scale, predatory publishing negatively impacts the scholarly record and the credibility of research outcomes. It also erodes public confidence in science and research, adding to misinformation and the creation of disinformation.

There is no single definitive source recommended for identifying predatory journals and publishers. Instead, using the following resources together will provide a comprehensive analysis and more reliable results:

Cabells Predatory Reports 
Searchable database of journals identified as probable threats to ethical academic publishing. Each journal entry includes a detailed report identifying the specific predatory behaviors that their evaluation revealed. The selection process is described and criteria is weighted in order to provide a robust analysis. Review dates are included, but note that some reviews are dated so cross-referencing with another resource is recommended. Cabells is made available through a library subscription and is best accessed through the library's site.

Think. Check. Submit. 
The Think. Check. Submit. checklist walks you through a series of questions when considering a journal (or book). The list is based on best practices in scholarly publishing as defined and/or endorsed by global organizations dedicated to ethical academic publishing. Think. Check. Submit includes links to lists of reputable international journals in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Europe. The checklist is available in multiple languages and is openly available. 

DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
International directory of open access (OA) journals that adhere to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. All journals and publishers in the directory have been evaluated by multiple reviewers using criteria considered the gold standard in OA publishing.

There are numerous lists of predatory publishers and journals openly available online. Unfortunately these sites are frequently out of date and lack transparency in their processes and credentials. The following are examples of popular sites that are considered problematic:
 

• PredatoryJournals.org - While the site contains good advice and links to more reliable sources in the News section, the lists are not current (despite being presented as annually updated.) Also absent is their evaluation criteria and processes for including journals and publishers. The site's author(s) and their credentials are not disclosed.
• Beall's List - In 2010 Jeffrey Beall, Librarian and Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Denver, created the first list of questionable open access publishers and journals. The list ceased being updated by Beall in 2017 amid controversy. Like PredatoryJournals.org, this site provides links to more reliable sources. But it also lacks transparency, regular updates, or identification of the site's author(s) and their credentials.

Criteria for evaluating journals and publishers are based on agreed upon standards and best practices. These guidelines are created by organizations representing academia, publishing, and scholarly ethics. Their work is highly collaborative and international in scope. However, unintentional bias may occur when the organizations' recommendations and outcomes are translated into specific evaluative criteria. Examples of  potential biases to be aware of include:
 

Disciplinary - Journal publishing, especially in the sciences, tends to be the primary basis for many guidelines and best practices. As a result, disciplines that produce open access papers, books, and other scholarly works may not be adequately represented by agreed upon criteria.

Geographical - Because much of the initial work in identifying and describing predatory or fraudulent publishing centered in North America and Western Europe, some guidelines and evaluation criteria may be based on the academic publishing practices originating in those regions. In addition, the higher number of predatory publishers based in certain regions may create an unintentional bias towards any publisher from those regions. 

Language - Because English is the predominate language of research, some international publishers featuring English as Additional Language content may be unfairly flagged as unprofessional due to vocabulary and grammatical choices.

Economics - Like language, publishers operating at a different economic level than those considered representative of best practices, may be unfairly critiqued based on the limited resources at their disposal. Economic bias is frequently tied to geographical bias.