“Predatory Journals”: Who is the Victim?

While reading my emails today I came across another invitation to submit a paper to an online open-access medical journal. The title of the journal sounded very authoritative, although the solicitation itself did not come from the editor, or even from someone who identified themselves as an MD or PhD. In the past I received solicitations of this kind once a week, but the frequency has progressively increased so that I often receive one daily, and have received more than one on several days. Interestingly, I occasionally receive invitations to submit to journals that not only are not devoted to cardiology, but do not even deal with either medicine or science. While the majority of invitations do not specify a cost, a number of them do in the form of offering discounts from the existing fee.

The above solicitations typically come from a group of publications that have been termed “predatory journals.” The definition of predatory journals differs among sources. However, a common definition is journals created, not to publish rigorously vetted science, but to publish whatever authors submit in return for the payment of a processing charge. Since these journals neither bear the expense of the normal review process nor that of print publication, they realize a substantial profit from the processing fee paid by the authors who submit manuscripts. It is assumed that the business model for such journals consists of placing as many manuscripts online with as little review as possible to achieve the greatest profit.

The criteria by which predatory journals can be identified have not been universally agreed upon. However, several general characteristics have been used to define these publications. Most importantly, they do not provide competent peer review and strict editorial oversight. They often falsely claim affiliations with prestigious scholarly/scientific organizations, or with non-existent organizations. They have a minimal or non-existent editorial board, and sometimes name reputable scholars to the editorial board without permission. They may falsely claim to have a high impact factor or to have inclusion in prestigious indexes. They typically hide information about charges until after submission. It has been estimated that there are currently nearly 10,000 journals that fulfill these characteristics.

That predatory journals exist has been known for some time, and numerous articles have been devoted to them in medical and lay publications. Several reports have described submitting manuscripts with fabricated and clearly erroneous data, and having them accepted without revision by journals in this category.¹ Similarly, other papers have described fictitious or unqualified individuals receiving an invitation to serve on the editorial board, or even as editor-in-chief, of predatory journals.² Journals that appear to be predatory have been catalogued in at least two repositories in the past. However, Beall’s list has been discontinued, and Cabell’s scholarly services must be purchased.

The term “predatory” was originally applied since it was assumed that most authors who submitted manuscripts to these journals were unaware of their nature. It was believed that these authors thought that they were submitting their work to legitimate, respected peer review journals, and further that they were unaware of the processing fees. However, these journals have survived, and indeed proliferated, as time has gone by. Therefore, they must be receiving some quantity of material, at least some of which must come from individuals who are aware of their policies. In fact, data has accumulated indicating that many authors who submit to these journals are doing so purposely.

There are a number of reasons why investigators might have their material published in predatory journals. First, of course, is that they are unaware of their nature. In this regard a number of institutions and libraries have made services available to their faculty and staff to identify credible journals in which to publish. For other authors, it is likely that they have been unable to have their work accepted in conventional journals, and have turned to predatory publications in frustration and the desire to have their work available to be read at least somewhere. However, it is impossible not to speculate that some authors knowingly and willingly send articles to these journals for the purpose of building a bibliography and enhancing their curriculum vitae. In an article published recently in the New York Times by Gina Kolata,³ she referred to several instances in which researchers had put forth papers published in predatory journals as evidence supporting promotion or favorable evaluation. This has apparently most frequently involved faculty in institutions whose primary mission is education and for whom a very large teaching assignment is an impediment to performing research. Of significance, universities and institutions confronted with faculty who publish in predatory journals often turn a blind eye or even look favorably upon such publications in promotions and advancements.

In view of the foregoing, it is hard to see how often predatory journals are really predatory, and if so, who are the victims. On those occasions when an author is truly unaware of the policies of a predatory journal, it is clear that they have been victimized. However, even in these cases, it is surprising that a serious researcher is not familiar with the spectrum of credible rigorous peer review journals in their specialty. Most investigators are not only familiar with the pecking order of journals in their field, but also know their impact factor. Some authors will have turned to predatory periodicals in a last ditch effort to have their work published, fully cognizant of the status of the journal. They often rationalize that the peer review processes of legitimate journals are imperfect, which is certainly true. However, they submit their work to predatory journals of their own volition, and certainly cannot be considered victims. A final group of authors publish in predatory journals knowing that they lack robust review, but seeking to build or enhance their publication record. Such individuals often seek to hide the nature of the journals that accept their manuscripts. These authors are not victims, and in fact aid and abet the success and continuing existence of predatory journals. Finally, it appears some institutions do not make the effort to distinguish between legitimate and predatory journals in their evaluation processes, and even promote publications in these journals as evidence of their scholarly accomplishments. Such institutions are certainly not being victimized by these journals. If there are victims from predatory publishing it is the readers and public who may be unaware of the lax editorial function. This may lead to the promulgation of erroneous information.

As is true of businesses in general, they are successful when they identify a need and fill it with a product. We live in an age of publish or perish, and the currency of most academic institutions is still research productivity. Investigators need publications for advancement, and in some cases to hold their position. Institutions need publications for prestige and fund raising. Predator journals provide a means to fill this need. Moreover, absent costs for review and printing, they are very profitable. So it seems to me that these journals with lax or absent editorial processes are a perfect match to fill the need of many investigators and institutions, who willingly pursue this solution. In this regard they can hardly be considered predatory, nor can the authors or institutions be considered victims.