Virginia Barbour

Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsOn 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.ResultsNinety-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

Facilitating Prospective Registration of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A STARD Initiative

100 USD, IQR

Competing interests in journal editors

63–

CONSORT Statement for randomized Trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: A 2017 update and a CONSORT extension for nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts

150) than open access journals (

Authorship and publication: deciding where to publish, interviews with QUT researchers

1865 USD, IQR

Journal peer review: starting out, interviews with QUT researchers

800–

Authorship and Publication

2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals (

Authorship: interviews with QUT researchers

3000 USD, IQR

Journal peer review: advice to early career researchers

2500–

Journal peer review: thoughts about the system, interviews with QUT researchers

3000).ConclusionsWe 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.