Perspectives From Authors and Editors in the Biomedical Disciplines on Predatory Journals: Survey Study

Abstract

Background 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. Objective 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. Methods 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. Results 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 (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future. Conclusions 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.

Predatory Journals: A Literature Review

“…Although our search included articles indexed in PubMed, only relevant reports in English were selected. [16] [19] [19] [ 17,26]…”

“…Their study proposes the defining criteria of a predatory journal is a point of contention among many researchers today. Beall's list is based on a single researcher's criteria has been a controversial [15][16] Cohen et al (2019) set the premise of their survey by noting that predatory journals fail to fulfil the basic [16] [8]…”

“…A mention of PubMed or MEDLINE was noted in 19.7% of e-mails sent to authors. 38.8% of these e-mails noted peer review in [16] [16] [17] [ [16][17][18] Cobey et al (2019) identify the threat of presumed predatory journals as a further layer of complexity to the journal selection process. Seemingly, these outlets exploit the open access-publishing model.…”

“…The key driving factors that influence decisions in Africa and the Middle East in choosing the target journal include the indexation status, impact factor, the international status, and possibly free publication. [23] [23] [24,26] Methods used in the articles [16] [17]…”

“…In a cohort study, the authors reported that publication is an imperative facet in terms of academic promotion. [16] While many editors were familiar with predatory journals, 67% of them were unaware. A high prevalenceis seen in the United States and India.…”