Predatory publications - Recognize and avoid

Abstract

According to the dictionary, “Predatory” means ‘anything that is inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit.’[1] Predatory journals and publishers, a global threat, characteristically are entities prioritizing self-interest at the expense of academic scholarship; and their attributes are false or misleading information, deviation from good editorial and publication practices, lack of procedural transparency, and/or use of intense and indiscriminate canvassing practices.[2] A predatory journal’s website or e-mails usually exhibit contradictory statements, false impact factors, incorrect and/or misrepresented editorial board details, false indexing details, and misleading claims about their peer-review process with an overall unprofessional and poorly drafted web page.[2] Online predatory publishers take advantage of the ‘Gold Open Access’ model wherein the publication processing charges become their source of income rather than the journal subscriptions.[3] Not only naive researchers but established ones also fall victim to predatory journals. An over-emphasis on publications for academic and professional advancement is an important contributor to the surge in predatory publishing. Therefore, the problem is not only with the publishers but also with academicians who find publishing in such journals easy and fast so as to obtain their career recognitions.[4] Although authors have suggested excellent criteria to identify predatory journals,[5] it still remains significantly challenging to differentiate newly emerging journals which use questionable methods to attract submissions and frequently lack an appropriate professional outlook. What is the harm caused by predatory publishing? Predatory publishers lead to academic and scientific confusion, poor scholarships, and wastage of resources.[2] The authors’ work may be subject to inferior peer-review or none at all. It may not show up in research databases. Since these journals are set up for short-term monetary gains, the work may even become untraceable after some years which can be problematic if the article has been quoted for career advancement purposes. Honest researchers become affected when their work gets published alongside unethically published articles.[4] Lay people and medical persons place their trust in the validity of scientific content, but unfortunately, articles in predatory journals may affect their scientific worthiness and adversely influence healthcare decisions.[3] What can be done? With the current pressure on the academicians to publish, it will not be an easy task to eliminate the rotten apples which challenge the validity and reliability of scientific literature. Collective and constant effort is required to tackle the issue[6]: Awareness among researchers and clinicians regarding predatory publishing and this article[5] surely paves the way in the direction. Predatory publishing should also be frequently discussed during scientific meetings.[17] Academicians should be trained to identify predatory journals and inferior-quality articles. Institutes and guides should improve publication literacy and insist on submissions to legitimate journals only. Researchers should resist publishing speedily and easily in such journals and also refrain from citing articles published in predatory journals. For career advancements, authorities should lay emphasis on the quality of publications and their authenticity rather than their quantity. Academic libraries should avoid listing predatory publishers in their catalogs. Scholarly databases should identify and remove illegitimate journals and publishers from their listings. Scientific social networking sites should share information on such publishers and journals. Deciding bodies should formulate policies to overcome the problem of predatory publishing. The threat will continue to exist as long as institutions and universities continue to use the number of publications produced as a criterion for graduation or career advancement and the ‘publish or perish’ culture will continue to promote a suitable environment for the existence and survival of predatory publications. It can be tough to distinguish a predatory journal from an under-resourced journal; both can be low quality, but the latter does not have an intent to deceive. Therefore, all red flags should be assessed with care. The intent being hard to assess, the burden of proof rests on the journal owners.[2] Finally, individual integrity is the chief tool that will stem the rot.[8] About the author Dr Purvi Bhagat Dr Purvi Bhagat is an Associate Professor & Head of Glaucoma Clinic at the M & J Western Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Government Eye Hospital, Ahmedabad. Beyond her speciality qualifications, she has been awarded an International fellowship in medical education and research, the ‘FAIMER’. She is a passionate teacher and has to her credit numerous publications and innumerable presentations done at local, state, national and international levels. She holds various prestigious leadership positions in local, state & national societies & committees and is an active member of the medical education unit and curriculum committee of her college. She serves on the editorial board of Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, National Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences and BJites Sensoria, a cultural magazine of her college; is Managing Editor of the Global Journal of Cataract Surgery and Research in Ophthalmology; and a reviewer in various other national and international journals of repute. Her article on ‘Development & Introduction of a communication skills module for postgraduate students of Ophthalmology’ in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology was awarded ‘Certificate of Merit’ in 2020 and she also has to her credit awards for ‘Outstanding work as a woman’, ‘Role model of the year’, ‘Best ACOINian’, ACOIN work, ‘Leadership’, ‘Contribution to Ophthalmology’ and ‘IJO Honor award for Peer review”.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.