Predatory Journals: What They Are and How to Avoid Them

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy

Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals is an integral step of the clinical pharmacy research process, allowing for knowledge transfer and advancement in clinical pharmacy practice. Writing a manuscript for publication in a journal requires several careful considerations to ensure that research findings are communicated to the satisfaction of editors and reviewers, and effectively to the readers. This commentary provides a summary of the main points to consider, outlining how to: (1) select a suitable journal, (2) tailor the manuscript for the journal readership, (3) organise the content of the manuscript in line with the journal's guidelines, and (4) manage feedback from the peer review process. This commentary reviews the steps of the writing process, identifies common pitfalls, and proposes ways to overcome them. It aims to assist both novice and established researchers in the field of clinical pharmacy to enhance the quality of writing in a research paper to maximise impact.

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study)

Objective

The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing.

Methods

Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics.

Results

Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores.

Conclusion

The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Decatastrophizing research irreproducibility

The reported inability to replicate research findings from the published literature precipitated extensive efforts to identify and correct perceived deficiencies in the execution and reporting of biomedical research. Despite these efforts, quantification of the magnitude of irreproducible research or the effectiveness of associated remediation initiatives, across diverse biomedical disciplines, has made little progress over the last decade. The idea that science is self-correcting has been further challenged in recent years by the proliferation of unverified or fraudulent scientific content generated by predatory journals, paper mills, pre-print server postings, and the inappropriate use of artificial intelligence technologies. The degree to which the field of pharmacology has been negatively impacted by these evolving pressures is unknown. Regardless of these ambiguities, pharmacology societies and their associated journals have championed best practices to enhance the experimental rigor and reporting of pharmacological research. The value of transparent and independent validation of raw data generation and its analysis in basic and clinical research is exemplified by the discovery, development, and approval of Highly Effective Modulator Therapy (HEMT) for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients. This provides a didactic counterpoint to concerns regarding the current state of biomedical research. Key features of this important therapeutic advance include objective construction of basic and translational research hypotheses, associated experimental designs, and validation of experimental effect sizes with quantitative alignment to meaningful clinical endpoints with input from the FDA, which enhanced scientific rigor and transparency with real world deliverables for patients in need.

Commentary: Fifty years exploring pharmacology with Sam Enna

The passing of Sam Enna in June of 2023 is major loss to the world of pharmacology. While best known for his extensive research activities in the area of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) pharmacology, Sam devoted much of his professional time to teaching and as an Editor in Chief for the legacy journals - the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET - 1998-2003); Pharmacology & Therapeutics (P & T - 2003-2023) and Biochemical Pharmacology (BCP -2003-2023) - increasing the volume of submissions for all three journals and their Impact Factors while decreasing the time for peer review and publication. Sam was a well-respected consultant in the CNS area for the biopharmaceutical industry and served as Secretary General and President of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology where his efforts were focused on sustaining research integrity, particularly in the areas of data reproducibility and fraud. This Commentary provides a personal overview of Sam's 50-year career in pharmacology and briefly updates topics that were of keen interest to Sam including: developments on the continuing reproducibility crisis where systematic fraud continues to proliferate now reaching industrial scale proportions, aided and abetted by paper mills, AI and the erosion of meritocratic norms; and the fall and rise of CNS drug discovery.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

Keeping medical science trustworthy: The threat by predatory journals

Since most scientific journals tend to ask article processes costs from authors, a new category of journals has developed of which the business model is commonly exclusively based on financial contributions by authors. Such journals have become known as predatory journals. The financial contributions that they ask are not always lower than those asked by high-quality journals although they offer less: there is commonly no real review, texts are not edited, and there are commonly no printed editions. The lack of serious reviews makes predatory journals attractive, however, particularly for authors of low-quality (or even fraudulent) manuscripts. It is shown here that numerous - commonly fairly recent - journals, some of which may predatory, attract manuscripts by approaching authors of articles in high-quality journals like Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Publication of articles in such journals contaminates thorough literature and undermines the trustworthiness of the medical society. Any involvement in such journals (as an author, reviewer or editor) of such journals should therefore be discouraged.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations

BACKGROUND

This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months.

METHODS

All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

RESULTS

A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.

Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization

Best practices in global health training prioritize leadership and engagement from investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), along with conscientious community consultation and research that benefits local participants and autochthonous communities. However, well into the 20th century, international research and clinical care remain rife with paternalism, extractive practices, and racist ideation, with race presumed to explain vulnerability or protection from various diseases, despite scientific evidence for far more precise mechanisms for infectious disease. We highlight experiences in global research on health and illness among indigenous populations in LMICs, seeking to clarify what is both scientifically essential and ethically desirable in research with human subjects; we apply a critical view towards race and racism as historically distorting elements that must be acknowledged and overcome.

Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers

AIMS

We explored the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards predatory publishing.

METHODS

A retrospective pre-post quasi experimental design was implemented on HCWs within King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Following a 60-min educational lecture, a self-administered questionnaire was completed by participants. Pre- and post-intervention scores for familiarity, knowledge, practices, and attitudes were compared using the paired sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify predictors of mean differences (MD) of knowledge scores.

RESULTS

A total of 121 respondents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants demonstrated underwhelming awareness of predatory publishing and average levels of knowledge of their characteristics. Furthermore, respondents did not take the necessary precautions to avoid predatory publishers. The intervention (i.e. the educational lecture) improved familiarity (MD: 13.4; 95%CI: 12.4 - 14.4; p-value < .001), knowledge of predatory journal's characteristics (MD: 12.9; 95%CI: 11.1 - 14.8; p-value < .001), awareness and perceived compliance to preventive measures (MD: 7.7; 95%CI: 6.7 - 8.6; p-value < .001), and positively influenced attitudes towards open access and safe publishing (MD: 0.8; 95%CI: 0.2 - 1.5; p-value = 0.012). Females had significantly lower familiarity scores (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, those who had published in open access journals, received at least one predatory e-mail, or had more than 5 published original articles had significantly higher familiarity and knowledge scores (all p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

An educational lecture proved effective in improving awareness of KHCC's HCW's to predatory publishers. Nonetheless, the mediocrity of pre-intervention scores raises concerns on effectiveness of the predatory covert practices.

Thank you for the privilege

This editorial, by the retiring Editors Christopher Fairley and Roy Chan, tells the story of the founding of Sexual Health in 2004 and its journey. They express their gratitude for privilege they have enjoyed as Editors-in-Chief of the journal.

Who are the most highly cited forensic scientists in the United States?

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career-long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence.

Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them

Predatory publishers, also known as counterfeit, deceptive, or fraudulent, are organisations that exploit the open-access scholarly model by charging hefty article processing charges (APCs), often without the scientific rigour and ethical processes offered by legitimate journals. Their rising prevalence is of concern to the scientific community, as the consequences of falling victim to them can negatively impact academic integrity and reputation, and render an author's work worthless and untrustworthy. Common characteristics include inappropriate marketing and misrepresentation of services by targeting individuals with solicitation emails, inadequate peer-review processes, lack of editorial services and transparency about APCs, and false claims about citation metrics and indexing that cannot be verified. Given the infiltration of predatory publishers, authors are advised to proceed with caution when receiving solicitation emails and if in doubt, to follow the Think, Check, Submit checklist.

Poor Representation of Developing Countries in Editorial Boards of Leading Obstetrics and Gynaecology Journals

Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect.

Are We Sure We Fully Understand What an Infodemic Is? A Global Perspective on Infodemiological Problems

Infodemic is defined as an information epidemic that can lead to engaging in dangerous behavior. Although the most striking manifestations of the latter occurred on social media, some studies show that dismisinformation is significantly influenced by numerous additional factors, both web-based and offline. These include social context, age, education, personal knowledge and beliefs, mood, psychological defense mechanisms, media resonance, and how news and information are presented to the public. Moreover, various incorrect scientific practices related to disclosure, publication, and training can also fuel such a phenomenon. Therefore, in this opinion article, we seek to provide a comprehensive overview of the issues that need to be addressed to bridge the gap between science and the public and build resilience to the infodemic. In particular, we stress that the infodemic cannot be curbed by simply disproving every single false or misleading information since the belief system and the cultural or educational background are chief factors regarding the success of fake news. For this reason, we believe that the process of forming a critical sense should begin with children in schools (ie, when the mind is more receptive to new ways of learning). Furthermore, we also believe that themes such as scientific method and evidence should be at the heart of the university education of a future scientist. Indeed, both the public and scientists must be educated on the concepts of evidence and validity of sources, as well as learning how to dialogue appropriately with each other. Finally, we believe that the scientific publishing process could be greatly improved by paying reviewers for their work and by ceasing to pursue academic success at all costs.

Vitamin D supplementation for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent and complex gastrointestinal disorder characterized by chronic abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. Observational studies have suggested a relationship between serum vitamin D levels and IBS symptoms. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the clinical effects of vitamin D supplementation on IBS symptom severity and quality of life (QoL) measures.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted by four authors independently, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus from the senior author. Continuous data were pooled with standardized mean difference (SMD) using the DerSimonian and Laird's random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis by risk of bias and potentially "predatory" publication were performed as well.

RESULTS

A total of 685 patients across eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Vitamin D supplementation significantly improved IBS symptom severity scale scores, with a SMD of -0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.47 to -0.07, P = 0.04, I²  = 91%). Improvements in IBS-QoL scores were also observed, albeit not statistically significant (SMD 0.54; 95% CI -0.34 to 1.41, P = 0.15, I²  = 87%). However, small sample sizes, a relatively young study population, limited ethnicities, and varied vitamin D dosing strategies across the studies were notable limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D supplementation could be part of our clinical armamentarium when managing IBS patients due to the potential efficacy and good safety profile. Further randomized, controlled trials are required to confirm the therapeutic effects.

Evaluation of Issues Affecting Time Between Study Completion, Manuscript Submission, Acceptance, and Publication in Medical Journals

Introduction: Difficulty in finding the appropriate journal, adherence to the formatting differences between various journals, publication fees, delay in acceptance/rejection, etc., are a few reasons due to which much research is not published or when published the data in the research may become outdated. There are no studies to find out the issues which affect the time delay between study completion, submission to the journal, acceptance by the journal, and publication. With this background, we conducted this study.

Methods: This study was exempted by the Ethics committee as it was based on online data. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2020 (Clarivate analytics), CiteScore, and Google Scholar were used to sort the high-, moderate-, and low-impact factor journals. Forty-five journals each from high-, medium- and low-impact factors (h-index median, Google Scholar Metrics h5-index) were selected. Similarly, 15 predatory scientific journals were chosen. Journals with medical science backgrounds were chosen by randomization. Only original research articles were included. From each journal, five articles were chosen randomly from the latest issue pre-pandemic. The search was performed from April 2021 to June 2021. Variables analyzed were indexing of the journal, publication fees, level of impact factor, specialty domain, number of editors, frequency per year, date of study completion, date of submission, date of acceptance, date of publication, and h-index median. Data were compiled in Microsoft Excel Workbook (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and analyzed using IBM Corp. Released 2019. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Variables of time were represented as median and interquartile range, and the number of journals and processing fees for publication were descriptively analyzed.

Results: Out of 60 journals selected, 300 original articles were analyzed. There were 26 specialty-wise journals; the commonest was multispecialty journals. The fastest time from study completion to submission, submission to acceptance, submission to publication, and acceptance to publication was 15.5, 30, 61, and 0 days, respectively, and the slowest duration was 1636, 452, 615, and 456 days, respectively. PubMed indexed journals had a higher number of editors, h5-index, and h5 median, and slower time for acceptance and publication compared to non-PubMed indexed journals (p<0.05). Predatory journals had a lower h5-index and h5 median along with faster time to acceptance and publication compared to high and moderate impact factor journals (p<0.05). Journal with faster acceptance had faster publication as well (r=0.85), but no impact of the number of editors, number of issues per year (frequency), and publication fees with time to acceptance and publication.

Conclusion: Though PubMed indexed journals with a greater number of editors and high fees are slower to publish articles but they are a safe option for researchers. The impact factor does not effect the speed of publication for non-predatory journals. Paying high fees and choosing a journal with more issues per year does not ensure quick publication to the researchers.

Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?

OBJECTIVE

To verify researchers-nurses' knowledge about trends in scientific publishing and good research practices.

METHOD

A descriptive study carried out through an online survey with 197 nurses holding master's and/or doctoral degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire with 18 questions on the subject was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on researchers' scores (Mann-Whitney test).

RESULTS

Among the specific questions, the mean of correct answers was 7.1: 6.4 for master's and 7.4 for doctoral degree holders. There was a significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p = 0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p = 0.021), according to mean difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers had the worst knowledge.

CONCLUSION

We identified that, regardless of the education level (master's or doctoral degree), nurses have little knowledge about the topics studied, which can compromise the quality of production and the scientific vehicles used to disseminate this knowledge.

Choosing a Journal for Submission: Don't Fall Prey

The column in this issue is supplied by Barbara Gastel, MD, MPH, who is professor of veterinary integrative biosciences and of humanities in medicine at Texas A&M University, where she coordinates the graduate program in communicating science. Dr. Gastel obtained her medical and public health degrees from Johns Hopkins University. She is first author of the current edition of How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper (ABC-CLIO, 2016).

Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

The extent to which predatory journals can harm scientific practice increases as the numbers of such journals expand, in so far as they undermine scientific integrity, quality, and credibility, especially if those journals leak into prestigious databases. Journal Citation Reports (JCRs), a reference for the assessment of researchers and for grant-making decisions, is used as a standard whitelist, in so far as the selectivity of a JCR-indexed journal adds a legitimacy of sorts to the articles that the journal publishes. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) once included on Beall’s list of potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers, had 53 journals ranked in the 2018 JCRs annual report. These journals are analysed, not only to contrast the formal criteria for the identification of predatory journals, but taking a step further, their background is also analysed with regard to self-citations and the source of those self-citations in 2018 and 2019. The results showed that the self-citation rates increased and was very much higher than those of the leading journals in the JCR category. Besides, an increasingly high rate of citations from other MDPI-journals was observed. The formal criteria together with the analysis of the citation patterns of the 53 journals under analysis all singled them out as predatory journals. Hence, specific recommendations are given to researchers, educational institutions and prestigious databases advising them to review their working relations with those sorts of journals.