This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.
Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.
Potential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.
A total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (
Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors’ increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.
Increased access to the Internet has allowed for open access publishing to flourish. Traditional modes of scholarly publication involve the transfer of copyright from authors to publishers, with journal fees collected to provide access to articles. Traditional publishing, whether due to cost or perceived prejudicial peer review, is not embraced by all [
So called “predatory” journals take advantage of the open access publication model to prey on unsuspecting authors [
Defining what is and is not a predatory journal has been a point of contention among researchers [
What remains unknown amid this controversy is the perspective of both editors who manage predatory journals and those choosing to publish in them. While the lay press and literature has increasingly drawn attention to this issue, these journals continue to exist [
Beall’s list [
A total of 350 publishers were randomly selected from this list, using a random-number generator. Eight reviewers (AC, GP, PK, MN, AT, JM, CB, and SW) evaluated publishers using the following criteria. First, we confirmed an active link to the publisher website. Second, we reviewed the titles of journals within the portfolio of a publisher’s work to assess if any were biomedical journals in scope. Specifically, we applied the MEDLINE criteria: “[Journals] predominantly devoted to reporting original investigations in the biomedical and health sciences, including research in the basic sciences; clinical trials of therapeutic agents; effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or studies relating to the behavioral, epidemiological, or educational aspects of medicine” [
Surveys for both authors and editors were created during a round-table discussion among study authors. The surveys underwent iterative testing for clarity, content, and length. Next, we invited editors and authors to participate via email. Surveys were administered using REDCap, with one reminder sent to nonresponders. We simultaneously performed a nested randomized controlled trial on incentives to encourage survey response, which is published separately [
Surveys assessed authors’ basic demographics, publication history, their recollection of the editorial process for the article in question, and their knowledge regarding predatory journals (see
The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram. DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals; OASPA: Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association.
Summary statistics were used to describe the cohort. Means and standard deviations as well medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were used for continuous variables. Frequency tables were used for categorical variables. The chi-square statistic was used to compare frequencies between groups. Developed-nation status was based on the World Bank listing for high-income countries derived from gross national income higher than US $12,056 per capita [
Consent for publication was granted by participants when they responded to the survey in accordance with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Ethical clearance was granted by the IRB of the University of California, San Francisco, CA (approval number: 18-25351).
Journals meeting selection criteria came from 181 distinct publishers. There was a substantial range in the number of journals per publisher represented in our cohort. A total of 58.0% of publishers (105/181) were singular entities, having only a single journal in their portfolio. However, several larger publishers were also included; indeed, 52.00% of (1146/2204) journals came from just 3 out of 181 publishing companies (1.7%). Of the articles selected, 59.68% (811/1359) were published in 2018, 17.73% (241/1359) were published in 2017, and none were published before 2014. Authors and editors represented a global academic community (see
Responding authors had a median age of 43 years (IQR 33-54), with 47.0% (95/202) reporting that they had been in practice for over 15 years (see
A total of 12.1% of authors (25/206) felt publication in their chosen journal was both prestigious and had a positive impact on their career. In addition, 19.6% of authors (39/199) noted a positive career impact if they reported their paper was cited versus 10.6% (21/199) that reported a positive impact when their paper was not cited (
Authors that paid fees in the top quartile (>US $519) for publication had no difference in perception of journal prestige, impact on career, shorter publication times, or fewer revision requests than authors paying lower fees (see
Editors’ median age was 41 years (IQR 33-53) (see
Geographic distribution of survey invitees and responses.
Authors’ and editors’ basic demographics.
Demographics | Authors (N=206) | Editors (N=43) | ||
Age in years, median (IQRa) | 43 (33-54) | 41 (33-53) | .72 | |
Gender (male; N=205 authors), n (%) | 147 (71.7) | 29 (67) | .43 | |
From high-income country, n (%) | 71 (34.5) | 13 (42) | .40 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-5 | 37 (18.3) | 8 (19) | .77 |
|
6-10 | 34 (16.8) | 9 (21) |
|
|
11-15 | 21 (10.4) | 4 (9) |
|
|
>15 | 95 (47.0) | 20 (48) |
|
|
In training | 15 (7.4) | 1 (2) |
|
Estimated publication cost in US $, median (IQR) | 190 (0-520) | 634 (75-1360) | .02 | |
|
|
|
||
|
0-15 | 30 (15.2) | 4 (16) | .01 |
|
16-30 | 76 (38.6) | 4 (16) |
|
|
31-45 | 45 (22.8) | 14 (56) |
|
|
46-60 | 25 (12.7) | 2 (8) |
|
|
>60 | 21 (10.7) | 1 (4) |
|
Articles did not undergo peer review (N=25 editors), n (%) | 45 (21.8) | 2 (8) | N/Ab | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Observational | 46 (22.3) | N/A | N/A |
|
Otherc | 32 (15.5) | N/A |
|
|
Basic science | 23 (11.2) | N/A |
|
|
Case series | 22 (10.7) | N/A |
|
|
Survey research | 20 (9.7) | N/A |
|
|
Systematic review | 20 (9.7) | N/A |
|
|
Qualitative research | 15 (7.3) | N/A |
|
|
Cross-sectional | 15 (7.3) | N/A |
|
|
Editorial or letter to the editor | 13 (6.3) | N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open access for dissemination | 74 (35.9) | N/A | N/A |
|
Otherd | 52 (25.2) | N/A |
|
|
Solicited by editor | 52 (25.2) | N/A |
|
|
Affordability | 31 (15.0) | N/A |
|
|
Influenced by online advertising | 22 (10.7) | N/A |
|
|
Recommendation from peer | 22 (10.7) | N/A |
|
aIQR: interquartile range.
bNot applicable.
cOther types of studies include meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, case controls, and critical reviews.
dOther reasons include impact factors, recommendations from supervisor, print ads, and perceived journal prestige.
Publication costs and authors’ perceptions.
Perceptions and other factors | Bottom 75th percentile of cost | Top 25th percentile of cost | ||
|
|
|
||
|
Not prestigious | 19 (15.1) | 9 (13) | .81 |
|
Little prestige | 35 (27.8) | 15 (21) |
|
|
Moderate prestige | 52 (41.3) | 34 (48) |
|
|
Very prestigious | 15 (11.9) | 10 (14) |
|
|
Most prestigious | 5 (4.0) | 3 (4) |
|
|
|
|
||
|
Large negative impact | 2 (1.6) | 1 (1) | .49 |
|
Small negative impact | 3 (2.3) | 1 (1) |
|
|
Neutral | 54 (41.9) | 28 (39) |
|
|
Small positive impact | 51 (39.5) | 24 (33) |
|
|
Large positive impact | 19 (14.7) | 18 (25) |
|
|
|
|
||
|
0-15 | 16 (12.6) | 14 (20) | .69 |
|
16-30 | 50 (39.7) | 26 (37) |
|
|
31-45 | 31 (24.4) | 14 (20) |
|
|
46-60 | 17 (13.4) | 8 (11) |
|
|
>60 | 13 (10.2) | 8 (11) |
|
Revisions required (N=127 bottom 75th; N=72 top 75th), n (%) | 85 (66.9) | 51 (71) | .57 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal | 82 (63.1) | 27 (41) | <.001 |
|
Department | 21 (16.2) | 13 (20) |
|
|
Private | 5 (3.9) | 15 (23) |
|
Public | 22 (16.9) | 11 (17) |
|
|
Article subsequently cited (N=129 bottom 75th; N=71 top 75th), n (%) | 33 (25.6) | 21 (30) | .43 |
A total of 40% of editors (17/43) who responded were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. These editors were excluded from subsequent analysis. Among remaining editors, 96% (25/26) felt their journal was not a predatory journal and 50% (13/26) were already aware their journal was listed on Beall’s list. A total of 92% (24/26) of editors reported that their journal requires peer review. Editors reported that the mean cost to publish in their journals was US $634 (IQR 75-1360). Editors’ estimated, on average, that 50% of manuscripts required revisions and that 35% were rejected. A total of 54% (14/26) of editors reported that 31-45 days elapsed between submission and acceptance.
Whereas 77% of all surveyed editors (33/43) were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% (68/206) of authors were somewhat familiar with them (
Discrepancy in author and editor opinions on predatory journals.
Narrative comments were also collected via the survey. These provided surprising and conflicting insight into the attitudes and opinions of both authors and editors. Additionally, many survey respondents felt passionate enough about this topic to contact the research staff via email to share additional long-form opinions. Selected comments are presented in an anonymized fashion in
We found editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, but the vast majority of authors (67%) were not. Per authors and editors, in limited cases, predatory journals seemingly provide some editorial support via revisions, rejections, and circulation that was enough to drive citations. Predatory journal authorship is a global phenomenon in our study, with higher penetrance in India and the United States. Alarmingly, 39% of editors reported not even being aware of being a journal editor for the journal in question. Several editors sent us comments stating they had previously asked that their name and contact information be removed from the journal websites, given no purposeful affiliation. After alerting authors that their recent publication was in a potentially predatory journal, 88% would avoid the same journal, demonstrating that via dissemination of knowledge regarding predatory practices, predatory publishing may decrease.
On the surface, these predatory journals are providing at least some service to authors. In our cohort, authors frequently recalled a peer review and a need to submit revisions. Editors similarly stated that a peer review was performed and approximately 35% of articles were rejected. A potential marker of journal prestige and circulation is ultimately citation, reported by 27% of surveyed authors [
We found that 40% of authors were from countries designated by the World Bank as high income; prior work suggests that authors who published in predatory journals were primarily from developing nations [
Prior work proposed that young naïve authors are the target of predatory journals, but 47% of responding authors in this study have been in practice for more than 15 years [
A high proportion of responding authors in our cohort reported that publication is an important facet of academic advancement. There is a growing concern that the motivation to publish may supersede desires for research quality [
Potential solutions to predatory publishing include demanding promotion committees judge faculty on the quality of publications in lieu of sheer number [
Some authors shared already-published concerns regarding blacklists, such as Beall’s stifling of innovation in open access publishing, which is why we cross-referenced our findings with well-publicized white lists to generate a cohort of authors and editors [
A major limitation to this study is our poor response rates from both authors and editors, but particularly editors. Given that 39% of responding editors were not even aware that they were editors at the journal in question, it is not surprising that editors-at-large may have faced confusion with our survey invitation. Moreover, unlike author email addresses, the editorial email addresses often took a generic form, such as “editor@journalname.org,” and may have encountered staff that did not forward the survey to the intended recipient. Our data comes from an international cohort, but we randomized the selection of publishers and not the countries of publishers. As such, some countries only contributed via a single survey response and the responses should not be seen as representative of all authors of that region. All authors published their papers in English journals. Nonetheless, English may not be a first language for respondents, limiting responsiveness or leading to response error. Due to monetary and time constraints, we did not perform survey adaptation or cross-cultural validation for global participants [
Predatory journal authorship is a global phenomenon not unique to early-career researchers. The majority of studied authors were not familiar with predatory publishing practices, despite being published in a suspected predatory journal. Alarmingly, 39% of editors reported that they were not even aware of being an editor for the journal in question, clearly confirming the unethical practices of such journals. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.
Author online survey.
Editor online survey.
Free-form comments, edited for length, grammar, and spelling.
CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials
Directory of Open Access Journals
interquartile range
Institutional Review Board
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
Kelly Johnson provided invaluable assistance in supporting this research. Anthony Enriquez is recognized for his tireless efforts in assisting with IRB approval. We acknowledge the generous philanthropic support of the Alafi Fund, which was awarded to BNB and supported this work.
BNB and AC conceived and conceptualized the study, coordinated the data collection activity, carried out the statistical analysis, and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. SW, CB, PK, GP, AT, JM, MN, and AC collected the raw data, including contact information for potential survey respondents. They also iteratively developed the survey tool and participated in the design of the study, as well as edited the manuscript. PK specifically assisted with methodology development. GP was instrumental in editing the initial drafts. GP also assisted with graphic design and overall scope of the work. AC and GP coordinated the REDCap database housing the data and created the survey invitations. BNB provided mentorship and leadership for the project. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
None declared.