How to Recognise and Avoid Predatory Academic Publishing

Predatory publishing threatens research integrity. A global report urges nuanced definitions, awareness, training, and systemic reforms to combat unethical academic practices.

Predatory practices in academic publishing are a growing concern within the academic community, as they affect the quality, integrity, and credibility of the scientific enterprise. The number of predatory journals has steadily increased, and these unethical – sometimes blatantly fraudulent – enterprises have improved their abilities to mimic reputable journals. As a result, drawing a clear line between predatory and trustworthy publishing has become increasingly difficult.

To help scholars, institutions, and publishing professionals better understand the scope of predatory publishing and explore possible short- and long-term actions to address it, the Interacademy Partnership (IAP) – a global network of scientific academies – recently issued a report titled Combatting Predatory Academic Journals and Conferences. The report addresses the challenges of defining and recognising predatory journals, identifying the vulnerabilities in academic publishing that these practices exploit, and formulating responses at various levels while engaging different stakeholders.

A Nuanced Definition of Predatory Publishing

One of the key proposals in the IAP report is to update the definition of predatory publishing by moving beyond the traditional binary distinction between “good” and “bad” journals – often based on “watch” and “safe” lists – and adopting a more nuanced approach. IAP proposes a “spectrum or typology” of publishing practices: “a broad set of dynamic predatory behaviours that range from genuinely fraudulent and deceitful practices to questionable and unethical ones, with varying degrees of unacceptable to well-intentioned low-quality practices in the middle.”

Some traits indicative of predatory publishing practices include the absence or poor quality of peer review and/or editorial oversight (i.e., a non-existent or unresponsive editorial board), the deceptive use of names of reputable researchers, institutions, or journals, a lack of transparency regarding publication fees, and the use of aggressive, indiscriminate solicitations – often targeting early-career researchers or scholars from developing countries, even outside their areas of expertise.

Given that, to some extent, even established journals may adopt some of these practices, the spectrum approach proposed by IAP is a valuable tool for initiating “a new, more nuanced conversation that avoids the oversimplified classification of good and bad, safe and watch, in and out journals.”

Global Perceptions and Pressures in Academia

In its report, IAP summarises the results of a survey with over 1,800 respondents across 112 countries. Participants were asked about their awareness of predatory publishing in their field and geographic area and whether they had knowingly or unknowingly engaged in such practices. The results are not surprising: over 80% of respondents reported that predatory publishing is on the rise or already poses a serious challenge in their country, especially in middle- and low-income nations.

The most commonly cited reason for engagement with these enterprises was a lack of awareness about their nature. However, many researchers also pointed to the pressure to publish for career advancement as a key factor driving them to predatory journals. This highlights the contradictions within the academic evaluation system, which often places excessive emphasis on the quantity of publications rather than the quality of research. However, over 90% of respondents indicated that predatory practices must be actively combatted.

Tools and Resources for Detection

For journalists, several tools and resources are available to help identify (and avoid) predatory journals. Many of the resources cited in the report are free and maintained by institutions that act as watchdogs against malpractice. Examples include AuthorAid, predatory-publishing.com, and the initiative Think. Check. Submit.. Libraries and reputable indexing services such as Scopus and Web of Science also promote transparency and editorial best practices through initiatives such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Based on a thorough assessment of the causes and (mal)practices of predatory publishing, the report advances eight recommendations aimed at driving change and safeguarding the integrity and quality of scientific research. Among these is the need to expand research on predatory publishing – including a deeper understanding of its characteristics and mechanisms – and to improve the peer-review process by addressing its vulnerabilities and enhancing its quality, transparency and reliability. 

Training and Structural Reforms

The report also emphasises the importance of providing ongoing training on the publishing process for scholars at all career stages, enabling them to better discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate practices. It calls for confronting the growing challenge posed by the “monetisation and commercialisation of academic research outputs,” which fuels the further development of predatory publishing and pressures authors to resort to these venues for publication.

Finally, the authors stress the need to tackle the structural weaknesses of the peer-review system, where reviewers often lack proper training and recognition. This can lead journals to cut corners, ultimately diminishing the quality of peer review.

Journalists must consider this complexity and be aware of the broader issues in scientific publishing – from the systemic pressures faced by researchers to the high profits generated by publishing enterprises and the opportunities for exploitation that arise. Such awareness is essential for understanding the social, economic, and academic context in which research outputs are produced and shared with the global community and refining the skills to evaluate the quality of scientific work critically.

List of suggested tools and resources:

• AuthorAid, a freely accessible global network that provides support, mentoring, resources and training for researchers in the Global South.
• predatory-publishing.com, an anonymous group of people traing to get rid of predatory publishing.
• Think. Check. Submit., an online service that helps researchers identify trusted journals and publishers for their research.
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), an extensive index of diverse open access journals from around the world, driven by a growing community.