Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
, 15 (1), 28

Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Potential Predatory and Legitimate Biomedical Journals: Can You Tell the Difference? A Cross-Sectional Comparison

Larissa Shamseer et al. BMC Med.

Abstract

Background: The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as 'predatory', which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals.

Methods: On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified - potential predatory journals (source: Beall's List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated.

Results: Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals' homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric - the Index Copernicus Value - versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63-$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800-$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500-$3000).

Conclusions: We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates' publications as part of the hiring process.

Keywords: Biomedical journal; Journalology; Open access; Predatory; Publishing models; Scientific publishing.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of journal identification, selection, and inclusion in each study group. a Potential predatory journals identified from Beall’s list. b Presumed legitimate fully open access journals identified from PubMed Central including five purposely selected journals: PLOS Medicine, PLOS One, PLOS Biology, BMC Medicine, and BMC Biology. c Subscription-based journals identified from AIM

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 36 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
    1. Morrison H, Salhab J, Calve-Genest A, Horava T. Open access article processing charges: DOAJ survey May 2014. Publications. 2015;3:1–16. doi: 10.3390/publications3010001. - DOI
    1. Crotty D. Is it True that Most Open Access Journals Do Not Charge an APC? Sort of. It Depends. The Scholarly Kitchen on WordPress.com. The Scholarly Kitchen. 2015. http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/08/26/do-most-oa-journals-not-charge-an-apc-sort-of-it-depends/. 4 Apr 2016.
    1. Beall J. Beall’s List: Potential, Possible, or Probable Predatory Scholarly Open-Access Publishers. 2015.
    1. Beall J. Criteria for Determining Predatory Open-Access Publishers. 1st ed. 2012. http://wp.me/p280Ch-g5. Accessed 1 Apr 2014.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback