Caveat Scholar: On the Growth of Predatory Publishing

Analysis of thirteen predatory publishers: a trap for eager-to-publish researchers

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate a strategy employed by predatory publishers to trap eager-to-publish authors or researchers into submitting their work.

METHODS

This was a case study of 13 potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers with similar characteristics. Eleven publishers were included from Beall's list and two additional publishers were identified from a Google web search. Each publisher's site was visited and its content analyzed. Publishers publishing biomedical journals were further explored and additional data was collected regarding their volumes, details of publications and editorial-board members.

RESULTS

Overall, the look and feel of all 13 publishers was similar including names of publishers, website addresses, homepage content, homepage images, list of journals and subject areas, as if they were copied and pasted. There were discrepancies in article-processing charges within the publishers. None of the publishers identified names in their contact details and primarily included only email addresses. Author instructions were similar across all 13 publishers. Most publishers listed journals of varied subject areas including biomedical journals (12 publishers) covering different geographic locations. Most biomedical journals published none or very few articles. The highest number of articles published by any single biomedical journal was 28. Several editorial-board members were listed across more than one journals, with one member listed 81 times in different 69 journals (i.e. twice in 12 journals).

CONCLUSION

There was a strong reason to believe that predatory publishers may have several publication houses with different names under a single roof to trap authors from different geographic locations.

Beware of the predatory science journal: A potential threat to the integrity of medical research

The issue of predatory journals has become increasingly more prevalent over the past decade, as the open-access model of publishing has gained prominence. Although the open-access model is well intentioned to increase accessibility of biomedical research, it is vulnerable to exploitation by those looking to corrupt medical academia and circumvent ethics and research standards. Predatory journals will achieve publication by either soliciting unsuspecting researchers who have legitimate research but fall victim to these predators or researchers looking to quickly publish their research without a thorough review process. Some features of predatory journals are a quick non-peer-review process, falsely listing or exaggerating the credibility of editorial board members, and either lack of or falsification of institutional affiliations and database listings. These predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical research, as they will infect the available literature with unsubstantiated articles, and allow low-quality research. A number of steps can be taken to prevent the spread and increase awareness of predatory publishers, and these must be done to maintain the integrity of medical academia. Clin. Anat. 30:767-773, 2017. © 2017Wiley Periodicals, Inc.