A credit-like rating system to determine the legitimacy of scientific journals and publishers

Abstract

The predatory nature of a journal is in constant debate because it depends on multiple factors, which keep evolving. The classification of a journal as being predatory, or not, is no longer exclusively associated with its open access status, by inclusion or exclusion on perceived reputable academic indexes and/or on whitelists or blacklists. Inclusion in the latter may itself be determined by a host of criteria, may be riddled with type I errors (e.g., erroneous inclusion of a truly predatory journal in a whitelist) and/or type II errors (e.g., erroneous exclusion of a truly valid scholarly journal in a whitelist). While extreme cases of predatory publishing behavior may be clear cut, with true predatory journals displaying ample predatory properties, journals in non-binary grey zones of predatory criteria are difficult to classify. They may have some legitimate properties, but also some illegitimate ones. In such cases, it might be too extreme to refer to such entities as “predatory”. Simply referring to them as “potentially predatory” or “borderline predatory” also does little justice to discern a predatory entity from an unscholarly, low-quality, unprofessional, or exploitative one. Faced with the limitations caused by this gradient of predatory dimensionality, this paper introduces a novel credit-like rating system, based in part on well-known financial credit ratings companies used to assess investment risk and creditworthiness, to assess journal or publisher quality. Cognizant of the weaknesses and criticisms of these rating systems, we suggest their use as a new way to view the scholarly nature of a journal or publisher. When used as a tool to supplement, replace, or reinforce current sets of criteria used for whitelists and blacklists, this system may provide a fresh perspective to gain a better understanding of predatory publishing behavior. Our tool does not propose to offer a definitive solution to this problem.

Academia Should Stop Using Beall’s Lists and Review Their Use in Previous Studies

“…Teixeira da Silva et al [53] suggested a layer of classification, such as a credit-like rating, that can be used alone, or as an overlay to a more quantitative system of ranking behavior, such as the "Predatory Score" [54]. In such a system, concrete criteria are ranked, and a qualitative system of terminology, or color coding, is overlaid, to provide a score that reflects the attribution of positive points for scholarly behavior, but discounts points for unscholarly behavior.…”

Putting peer review to the test: A response to Caputo

“…Second, while I am largely "silent" (in Dunleavy, 2021) about contextual factors in scholarly publishing (e.g., increasing numbers of submissions, a "publish or perish" culture, lack of qualified reviewers, the rise of predatory publishing, etc.) -I am by no means ignorant of them (see Dunleavy, 2019;2020a, 2020bDunleavy & Hendricks, 2020;Teixeira da Silva et al, 2021). Rather, the point I was trying to convey in my original essay was that the deficiencies of traditional peer review are present regardless of these broader trends and shifts.…”

Progressive and degenerative journals: on the growth and appraisal of knowledge in scholarly publishing

“…In a similar vein, scholars have attempted to differentiate between quality, trustworthy, or "reputable" journals on the one hand, and untrustworthy or so-called "predatory" ones, through the creation of various whitelists and blacklists (Beall, 2010(Beall, , 2014Bisaccio, 2018;Grudniewicz et al, 2019;Laine & Winker, 2017;Teixeira da Silva et al, 2021). The underlying aim here is largely the same -journals found on blacklists are often viewed as containing weak, fraudulent, or otherwise flawed scholarship (i.e., they are "bad journals" and to be avoided).…”