Abstract
In the internet era spam has become a big problem. Researchers are troubled with unsolicited or bulk spam emails inviting them to publish. However, this strategy has helped predatory journals hunt their prey and earn money. These journals have grown tremendously during the past few years despite serious efforts by researchers and scholarly organizations to hinder their growth. Predatory journals and publishers are often based in developing countries, and they potentially target researchers from these counties by using different tactics identified in previous research. In response to the spread of predatory publishing, scientists are trying to develop criteria and guidelines to help avoid them—for example, the recently reported “predatory rate”. This article attempts to (a) highlight the strategies used by predatory journals to convince researchers to publish with them, (b) report their article processing charges, (c) note their presence in Jeffrey Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, (d) rank them based on the predatory rate, and (e) put forward suggestions for junior researchers (especially in developing counties), who are the most likely targets of predatory journals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is an approach of ranking predatory journals based on Beall’s criteria for detection of predatory journals. The criteria for ranking a predatory journal is based on a journal’s editorial section (Email, Affiliation, and Number of editors), review process and publishing (Review time, Unclear review process, Number of papers in each issue, Questionable special issue), announcement (Availability of journal full address, Using bogus metric and index, Send journal spam email to receive papers), and OA policies and publication charges (Fast track fee, Submission fee, Publication Fee, Charging both authors and readers). The total weighted predatory rate (PR) score ranges between 0 and 1 where score greater than 0.22 reflects a predatory journal, greater than 0 and lower than 0.22 reflects a journal with predatory practices, and 0 value confirms a non-predatory journal.
References
Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage: Chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2(2), 47–49. doi:10.1016/s2049-0801(13)70035-9.
Beall, J. (2015). Be careful using NCBI databases as journal whitelists. https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/11/19/be-careful-using-ncbi-databases-as-journal-whitelists/. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Beall, J. (2016a). Don’t use PubMed as a journal whitelist. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/20/dont-use-pubmed-as-a-journal-whitelist/. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Beall, J. (2016b). Questionable spam email from a Springer Nature Journal. https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/12/15/questionable-spam-email-from-a-springernature-journal/. Accessed 8 Jan 2017.
Beall, J. (2017a). Beall’s list of predatory publishers 2017. https://scholarlyoa.com/2017/01/03/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2017/. Accessed 7 Jan 2017.
Beall, J. (2017b). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica, 27(2), 273–279. doi:10.11613/BM.2017.029.
Bloudoff-Indelicato, M. (2015). Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publishers. Nature, 526(7575), 613. doi:10.1038/526613f.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65.
Casadevall, A., Bertuzzi, S., Buchmeier, M. J., Davis, R. J., Drake, H., Fang, F. C., et al. (2016). ASM journals eliminate impact factor information from journal websites. Infection and Immunity, 84(9), 2407–2408. doi:10.1128/iai.00564-16.
Clark, J., & Smith, R. (2015). Firm action needed on predatory journals. BMJ, 350, h210. doi:10.1136/bmj.h210.
Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2016). Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing. doi:10.1111/jan.13090.
Committee on Publication Ethics, Directory of Open Access Journals, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and World Association of Medical Editors. (2015). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. http://publicationethics.org/files/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishingv2.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2017.
Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016a). Ranking predatory journals: Solve the problem instead of removing it! Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 6(1), 1–4. doi:10.15171/apb.2016.001.
Dadkhah, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2016b). Unworthy peer review process and publishing method. Italian Journal of Medicine, 11, 1–4. doi:10.4081/itjm.2016.754.
Dadkhah, M., & Jazi, M. D. (2015). Special issues as criterion for journal quality evaluation: Letter to Editor. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 42–43. doi:10.18421/GP19.02-01.
Dadkhah, M., Maliszewski, T., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, 12(3), 353–362. doi:10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x.
Dhulkhed, V. K., Kurdi, M. S., Dhulkhed, P. V., & Ramaswamy, A. H. (2016). Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria? Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60(11), 796–800. doi:10.4103/0019-5049.193657.
Elmes, J. (2017). Journals blacklist creator blames university for website closure. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/journals-blacklist-creator-blames-university-website-closure. Accessed 3 July 2017.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed 8 January 2017.
Jalalian, M. (2015). The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them. Electronic Physician, 7(2), 1069–1072. doi:10.14661/2015.1069-1072.
Jalalian, M., & Dadkhah, M. (2015). The full story of 90 hijacked journals from August 2011 to June 2015. Geographica Pannonica, 19(2), 73–87. doi:10.18421/GP19.02-06.
Jawad, F. (2017). The race for publishing original biomedical research articles in Pakistan. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 67(1), 1–2.
Laine, C., & Winker, M. A. (2017). Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. http://www.wame.org/identifying-predatory-or-pseudo-journals. Accessed 5 March 2017.
Maaic, I., Begic, E., Donev, D. M., Gajovic, S., Gasparyan, A. Y., Jakovljevic, M., et al. (2016). Sarajevo declaration on integrity and visibility of scholarly publications. Croatian Medical Journal, 57(6), 527–529. doi:10.3325/cmj.2016.57.527.
Masten, Y. B., & Ashcraft, A. S. (2016). The dark side of dissemination: Traditional and open access versus predatory journals. Nursing Education Perspectives, 37(5), 275–277. doi:10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000064.
Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.
Memon, A. R. (2017a). Beall’s list has vanished: What next? Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical, 47(3), 222–223. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.0202.
Memon, A. R. (2017b). Research publications and education in Pakistani medical universities: Avoiding predatory journals and improving the quality of research. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical, 67(6), 830–833.
Memon, A. R. (2017c). End of 2016: Can we save research from predators in 2017? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9915-1.
Memon, A. R., & Waqas, A. (2017). Indexing by bibliographic databases of journals published in the developing world. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9898-y.
Moher, D., & Srivastava, A. (2015). You are invited to submit. BMC Medicine, 13, 180. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0423-3.
Petrişor, A.-I. (2016). Evolving strategies of the predatory journals. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 21(1), 1–17.
Pulla, P. (2016). Predatory publishers gain foothold in Indian academia’s upper echelon. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/predatory-publishers-gain-foothold-indian-academia-s-upper-echelon. Accessed 5 March 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aal0526.
Roberts, J. (2016a). Predatory journals: Illegitimate publishing and its threat to all readers and authors. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(12), 1830–1833. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.10.008.
Roberts, J. (2016b). Predatory journals: Think before you submit. Headache, 56(4), 618–621. doi:10.1111/head.12818.
Shyam, A. (2015). Predatory journals: What are they? Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports, 5(4), 1–2. doi:10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.330.
Wahyudi, R. (2017). The generic structure of the call for papers of predatory journals: A social semiotic perspective. In Text-based research and teaching (pp. 117–136). Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-59849-3_7.
Winker, M. A. (2016). Stop predatory publishers Now. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(11), 826. doi:10.7326/l16-0416.
Acknowledgements
I thank K. Shashok (Author AID in the Eastern Mediterranean) for improving the use of English in the manuscript and for helpful suggestions.
Author Contributions
Aamir Raoof Memon contributed to all the aspects of this manuscript and takes the responsibility of it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author does not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Memon, A.R. Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1617–1639 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9955-6