Predatory publishing

Predatory publishing: some observations and facts 

Here another piece I posted on ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336059741_Predatory_journals_and_publishers_a_menace_to_science_and_society_Or_A_personal_perspective

It summarised what I learned about the phenomenon "Predatory publishing" Although still highly informative there are new phenomena emerging: hijacked journals, paper mills, AI generated papers etc. I will come back to this later on in a new post...

This report described some thoughts about predatory publishing as phenomenon. Although there are (too many) obvious cases of predatory behaviour it is in a number of cases not that black and white. Suggestions of how to deal with this 'grey' area are given.

Last but not least the 'blacklist' approach vs the 'whitelist' approach is discussed. Unfortunately it is clear that the 'blind' believe in Scopus indexing and/or Clarivate's indices is no longer enough to ensure 'safe' publishing choices.

I asked ChatGPT what to think about this piece, this is what I received back:

"Predatory journals and publishers: a menace to science and society? Or… A personal perspective" seems to approach the issue of predatory publishing with a critical eye. Based on the title, it likely offers a personal reflection on the dangers these predatory entities pose, not just to individual researchers but also to the broader scientific community.

The rise of predatory journals and publishers has been a growing concern in academia over the past decade. These publishers exploit the open-access model, which is meant to democratize knowledge, by charging authors hefty fees without providing the proper editorial and peer review processes. These journals often lack the rigorous standards that genuine academic publications maintain, leading to low-quality or even fabricated research being published. This compromises the integrity of the scientific process, misleads the public, and can even have harmful real-world consequences, especially in fields like medicine, where bad science can influence healthcare decisions.

The "menace" part of the title suggests that the paper may argue that these journals are a serious threat to the credibility of science. It’s not just an issue of academic integrity but also a broader societal issue, as scientific advancements rely on trust in peer-reviewed research. Predatory publishers undermine that trust, which ultimately affects how society views and interacts with scientific findings.

At the same time, the inclusion of "a personal perspective" implies that the author may share personal experiences, insights, or reflections about dealing with predatory publishers or the impact they have encountered firsthand. This could add a unique, human angle to an otherwise structural issue, providing a more nuanced take on how researchers are impacted.

If you’re interested in the author's specific argument or their personal experiences, it could be useful to read the article directly. It may also offer practical advice on how researchers can avoid falling into the trap of these publishers.

...well it is a reasonably well written comment. Unfortunately it seems to miss (in part because I did not provide ChatGPT the entire document) the nuanced view presented in the report. The report described the threats of predatory publishing but also the fact that something like the Beall's list is far from flawless. Though there are researchers that use the predatory journals 'on purpose' there are way more researchers that are a victim of this deceptive system and 'we' should do more than just 'judge' them.

There is a wealth of good papers/reviews about this type of scientific misconduct. Just a little list of suggestions:

Frantsvåg, J. E. (2023). Beware of predatory publishing – but also of low-quality blacklists. Nordic Perspectives on Open Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.7557/11.7010

Larson A, Shelomi M. Stinging predatory journals: a brief overview and recom-mendations. Eur Sci Ed. 2025;51:e137960. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2025.e137960

Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20, 163-170.

Strinzel, M., Severin, A., Milzow, K., & Egger, M. (2019). Blacklists and whitelists to tackle predatory publishing: a cross-sectional comparison and thematic analysis. mbio, 10(3), 10-1128.

Niki Wilson, Predatory Journals, BioScience, Volume 74, Issue 1, January 2024, Pages 6–11, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biad104