Predatory publishing
What is a predatory journal?
Predatory journals are fraudulent journals that charge publication fees for open access without adequately handling the responsibilities of a scientific publisher.
Typical characteristics of predatory journals include:
- Aggressive marketing with invitations to submit manuscripts or become a peer reviewer or editorial board member.
- The peer review process is short, inadequate, and can sometimes be expedited by paying a fee.
- The websites of predatory journals often contain false information about indexing in databases and incorrect bibliometric indicators.
Some predatory journals can be identified based on these characteristics. More problematic are journals or publishers that are in a grey area. MDPI and Frontiers are publishers that have been in the spotlight in this regard.
Jufo’s panels has recently evaluated journals within the grey area. For example MDPI and Frontiers are classified as level 0 publishers. Several individual journals published by these publishers have already been downgraded to level 0 or will be downgraded in 2025 (Grey area journals, 2024).
The debate on MDPI
MDPI has been the subject of debate and has at various times been identified as a questionable publisher (see an overview in MDPI 2024). In an article published in 2021 (Oviedo García), some of MDPI’s journals were claimed to exhibit characteristics of predatory journals. The article was later retracted, and in 2023, a corrected version with somewhat softened conclusions was published. The article mentions, among other things, Sustainability as an example of a journal with traits of predatory journals: high self-citation rates, low publication threshold, high acceptance rate, a large number of special issues, many articles per volume, and an extremely large editorial board (Oviedo García, 2021; Oviedo-García, 2023).
Sustainability was downgraded in Jufo from level 1 to level 0 in 2022. Scopus ceased indexing Sustainability but decided to continue indexing it after a new evaluation. The process surrounding Oviedo García’s article and MDPI is described by Kincaid (2023, 2024). The debate on MDPI from Jufo’s perspective is summarised by Pölönen and Pylvänäinen (2023, in Finnish), Jufo’s assessment of Sustainability is also mentioned.
In 2023, Clarivate decided to stop indexing two of MDPI’s journals in Web of Science (Journal of Risk and Financial Management and International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health) as they were not considered to meet the quality criteria for WoS (MDPI 2023).
The discussion around MDPI and Sustainability shows that it is not always straightforward to identify predatory journals. Many MDPI journals are indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, JUFO, and DOAJ. This makes it difficult to assess the journals, as indexing in these databases is considered as a characteristic of a reputable journal.
In the report Combatting Predatory Academic Journals (2022, pp. 26ff), journals are described on a spectrum of predatory practices, ranging from fraudulent journals to journals that might occationally engage in predatory practices but takes proper actions if crtiticized. Typical markers are described in order to help define when a journal is deceptive, as compared to, for example, markers for a low-quality journal. This is an attempt to avoid a binary approach to predatory versus non-predatory journals, which does not always reflect a complex reality.
Hijacked or cloned journals
Some predatory journals clone the websites of legitimate journals but provide them with an incorrect URL. In this way, researchers are tricked into submitting their manuscripts to the predatory journal, which then collects the publication fees.
Indexjacking involves hijacking journals indexed in databases like Scopus or Web of Science. In some cases, links have been manipulated to lead to the cloned journal. Smaller publishers and scientific societies are more vulnerable, but even larger publishers have been affected.
Hijacked journals can also be found in Jufo or other databases like Scopus. Databases used to evaluate journals and as a source for publication metrics are in this way infiltrated by predatory journals.
Predatory conferences
Predatory conferences present themselves as legitimate scientific conferences and are indeed held, but they do not meet the expectations of a serious scientific conference. Typical characteristics of predatory conferences include:
- Aggressive marketing via email that describes benefits and entices manuscript submissions
- Quick acceptance
- Lack of websites or conference papers from previous conferences
- Promises of many awards and honours
- Unclear contact information and organisers.
Consequences of publishing in predatory journals
The visibility and impact of research are negatively affected by publishing in predatory journals. Submitted articles, which involve time-consuming research, are not handled in the publication process on par with serious journals. The article does not receive the visibility it should as it is not indexed in databases and falls outside the research lifecycle. One target audience for predatory journals is young, inexperienced researchers, but even researchers with longer careers have fallen into the same trap.
Avoiding predatory journals through quality review
To avoid predatory journals, one can start by checking if the journal is indexed in databases like Scopus, Web of Science, JUFO, and DOAJ.
Indexing in such databases is sometimes referred to as whitelists. Databases with open quality criteria for which journals are included in the database function as whitelists. Another attempt to identify predatory journals is by blacklisting them.
More about blacklists and whitelists
Beall’s list was one of the first blacklists. It was maintained by Jeffrey Beall but was discontinued in 2017 after various controversies (Beall’s list 2024). An archived version of Beall’s list has been republished by an anonymous maintainer, who promises limited updates. Predatory Journals is another anonymously maintained blacklist that does not publish the criteria for including journals and publishers on its list. Blacklists have been criticised for being difficult to keep comprehensive and up-to-date. It is also problematic if the criteria for inclusion in the list are not transparent or if it is maintained anonymously, as this can raise questions about the objectivity of the lists.
Cabell’s Predatory Reports is a subscription-based service that publishes its criteria for inclusion in the list. Hanken does not subscribe to Cabell’s.
Think, Check, Submit is a useful tool that helps to quality-check journals and publication channels. The service includes checklists for evaluating both journals and other publication channels such as books or book chapters.
Think, Check, Attend is a corresponding service for quality-assessing conferences and identifying predatory conferences. It is built in the same way with checklists and things to watch out for.
Feel free to contact the library at library@hanken.fi if you have questions about the evaluation of journals. We can help with checking the indexing of journals in various databases.
Also see the libguide on quality criteria for open access journals.
Sources
Abalkina, A. (2024). Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(4), 395-422, https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24855
Beall’s list (4.3.2024). Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall%27s_List#cite_note-39
Chartier, M. (15.9.2022). The alarming rise of predatory conferences. Eos 103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EO220449
Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences: Report (2022, March.) InterAcademy Partnership, https://www.interacademies.org/publication/predatory-practices-report-E…
Kincaid, E. (8.3.2023). Article that assessed MDPI journals as “predatory” retracted and replaced. Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2023/05/08/article-that-assessed-mdpi-journ…
Kincaid, E. (5.1.2024). Elsevier’s Scopus to continue indexing MDPI’s Sustainability after reevaluation. Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/05/elseviers-scopus-to-continue-ind…
Linna, A-K. (21.3.2024). Hijacked journals as a nuisance to the scientific community. Publication Forum, https://julkaisufoorumi.fi/en/news/hijacked-journals-nuisance-scientifi…
MDPI (14.6.2024). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
MDPI (22.3.2023). Clarivate Discontinues IJERPH and JRFM Coverage in Web of Science, https://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/5536
Oviedo-García, M. Á. (2021) Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Research Evaluation, 30(3), 405–419, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020
Oviedo-García, , M. Á. (2023) Correction to: Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), Research Evaluation, 32(2), 543 https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab020
Pölönen, J. & Pylvänäinen E. (23.3.2023). MDPI, Predatory Reports ja julkaisutoiminnan harmaa alue. Julkaisufoorumi, https://julkaisufoorumi.fi/fi/ajankohtaista/mdpi-predatory-reports-ja-j…
Ruth, A-S. (4.2.2019). How to avoid predatory publications? Responsible research, https://vastuullinentiede.fi/en/publishing/how-avoid-predatory-publications