A Researcher’s Guide to Identifying Predatory Journals

7 min readJan 15, 2024

The academic world is increasingly grappling with a covert adversary: predatory publishing. These deceptive venues, masquerading as legitimate scholarly platforms, not only undermine the integrity of research but also prey on the aspirations of academics. Understanding how to spot these entities is crucial for any researcher aiming to disseminate their work responsibly. This article guides researchers, particularly those new to academic publishing, in identifying and avoiding predatory journals, to protect their research contributions and uphold the integrity of scholarly communication.

Monument to an Anonymous Peer Reviewer in Moscow

Publish or Perish

In the academic world, the phrase “publish or perish” has long dictated the career trajectory of researchers. This pressure to publish in order to secure tenure, promotions, and recognition in academia has inadvertently laid the ground for the proliferation of predatory journals. These dubious publications exploit the urgency and anxiety embedded in the “publish or perish” culture, offering rapid publication with minimal or no peer review. While they promise a quick path to publication, their lack of rigorous standards undermines the integrity and credibility of academic research. Hence, researchers often find themselves caught in a dilemma: the need to publish frequently and swiftly can sometimes eclipse the necessity for quality and rigor in academic outputs. This environment not only harms the individual researcher’s reputation but taints the academic record with potentially unverified and substandard research, eroding the very foundation of scholarly communication and trust.

Tenure-Track

The tenure-track path in academia is often navigated through a delicate balance of responsibilities, typically segmented into 40% teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. This workload distribution reflects the multifaceted role of academia in not only advancing knowledge but also imparting it and contributing to the academic community. The 40% teaching component underscores the importance of educational excellence, where professors are expected to deliver high-quality instruction and mentorship to students. Equally, the 40% research commitment demands significant scholarly output, with emphasis on original contributions to the field and sustained research activities, often under the scrutiny of ‘publish or perish’ pressures. The remaining 20%, dedicated to service, involves contributions to the university’s governance, community engagement, and professional service within one’s discipline. While this tripartite division aims to create a well-rounded academic role, it often presents challenges, requiring academics to adeptly juggle these demanding and sometimes competing responsibilities. The ability to successfully balance these aspects is crucial for securing tenure, symbolizing not only recognition of past achievements but also the potential for future contributions to academia.

Predatory Publishing

Predatory publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship, often lacking transparency, peer review, and academic rigor. They exploit the open-access model primarily for financial gain, offering quick publication in return for hefty fees. Unlike legitimate journals, they contribute little to no value to the scholarly community.

Open Access

The open access model in scholarly publishing marks a significant shift from traditional subscription-based access, championing the principle of making research freely available to all. This model democratizes knowledge by removing paywalls, thus facilitating wider dissemination and accessibility of academic work. It caters to the global demand for unrestricted access to research findings, particularly benefiting researchers, practitioners, and students in regions where access to subscription-based journals is limited. However, this model also presents challenges, notably in its financial structure. The burden of publication costs often shifts from subscribers to authors or their institutions, sometimes leading to concerns about the financial implications for researchers and the potential for exploitation by predatory publishers. These publishers may compromise academic rigor in favor of profit, exploiting the open access model by charging authors high fees without providing the expected editorial and peer review services.

Moreover, the open access model is increasingly receiving backing from various research granting agencies. These organizations are advocating for open access policies, recognizing the value of unrestricted dissemination of research for the advancement of knowledge. Many are now mandating that the outcomes of the research they fund be published in open access formats, to ensure that publicly funded research is accessible to all. This support is pivotal in addressing the financial challenges associated with open access publishing. However, the dependence on grant funding to cover publication costs also raises questions about the sustainability of the open access model, especially for researchers who may not have access to such funding sources.

Key Indicators of Predatory Journals

Navigating the complex landscape of academic publishing can be daunting, especially with the rise of predatory journals that masquerade as legitimate platforms. Recognizing the hallmarks of predatory journals is crucial for researchers to safeguard their work and uphold the standards of academic excellence. This section discusses some of the key indicators that distinguish predatory journals from reputable ones.

Spam email invitations: A common tactic used by these journals is sending unsolicited emails to potential authors, often with flattery and promises of rapid publication. I receive countless of such emails from journals not even closely related to my research interests, let me know if you succeeded in halting the influx of such emails!
Lack of transparency: Predatory journals often obscure information about their editorial processes, fees, and management. A legitimate journal will always be transparent about its operations.
Questionable peer review process: A hallmark of academic integrity, peer review, is often absent or minimal in predatory journals, compromising the quality and credibility of published research.
Excessive publication fees: While open-access publishing often involves some form of processing fees, predatory journals exploit this by charging exorbitant amounts without offering corresponding editorial and publishing services.
Overly broad scope: Predatory journals claim to cover a vast array of topics to attract more submissions, which is impractical for genuine scholarly journals that focus on specific disciplines.

Peer Review

The peer review process — a stranger will question every word you have written. Oh, let’s leave that for another article because I have a lot to write about this! Stay tuned.

Checklist for Researching Potential Publication Venues

Careful vetting of potential publication venues is essential. Researchers should:

Check the journal’s indexing status in recognized databases.
Analyze previous issues for consistency and quality.
Review the credentials of the editorial board.
Consult trusted directories like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).
Check CABELLS predatory reports criteria.
Use the Think.Check.Submit. initiative.

Whitelists and blacklists are useful tools for identifying reputable and disreputable journals, respectively. However, researchers should not solely rely on these lists, as they may not be comprehensive or entirely up-to-date.

Vignettes

Here are a series of compelling examples that illuminate the complexities and quirks of academic publishing and predatory journals. Each case study provides unique insights into the challenges and triumphs in the world of academic research, from the perils of predatory journals to the innovative strategies employed by researchers to test the integrity of the peer review process.

The MIT Paper Generator Incident
A striking example of predatory publishing’s flaws was exposed by the MIT Paper Generator incident. Researchers from MIT developed SCIgen — An Automatic CS Paper Generator which automatically produced papers complete with graphs, diagrams, and references. Surprisingly, several of these completely computer-generated papers were accepted in predatory journals, and in conferences, highlighting the lack of legitimate peer review and editorial oversight in such venues.
The Star Wars and Star Trek Themed Hoax Papers
In 2017, a paper titled Mitochondria: Structure, Function and Clinical Relevance by Lucas McGeorge and Annette Kin, allegedly faculty members of the Department of Medical Cell Biology at the of the University of Saskatchewan, substitutes “midichlorians” for “mitochondria” — the microscopic creatures introduced in Star Wars films to explain “the Force”. The paper was accepted by four journals, two of these journals later removed the paper. This Star-Wars-inspired hoax paper was followed by another motivated by Star Trek; the paper Rapid genetic and developmental morphological change following extreme celerity drawing inspiration from the Star Trek Voyager episode “Threshold” was submitted to 10 journals, four of which accepted it, and one published it albeit briefly before eventually removing it from their website.

The Sokal Affair 2.0
In a modern twist on the famous Sokal Affair, where a physicist successfully published a hoax article in a cultural studies journal, a group of scholars in 2017 submitted 20 fake papers to various academic journals. These papers contained absurd and unethical arguments but were formatted to resemble legitimate scholarly articles. Several of these papers were not only accepted but praised by the journal editors, revealing a concerning lack of scrutiny in certain academic circles. This incident, sometimes referred to as “Sokal 2.0,” highlighted the vulnerabilities in academic publishing and called for a more rigorous vetting process to uphold the integrity of scholarly work.

This article navigated the muddy waters of predatory journals, dissected the “publish or perish” culture, and examined how to recognize credible publication venues. Equally important is the awareness of predatory conferences, which, akin to their journal counterparts, exploit the academic community. These conferences often lack legitimate peer review processes and are more focused on profit than scholarly exchange. They pose a similar threat to the naive researcher, luring them with the promise of exposure and networking opportunities.

As scholars, our commitment to upholding the highest standards of research and dissemination is crucial. Staying informed and vigilant is the best strategy against predatory practices in academic publishing. Education and awareness are key defenses against predatory publishing, so please discuss this important topic with your graduate students and mentees.