An unintended consequence of the open access movement, predatory publishers have appeared in many countries, offering authors a quick and easy route to publication in exchange for a fee and usually without any apparent peer review or quality control. Using a large database of publications, Marcelo S. Perlin, Takeyoshi Imasato and Denis Borenstein analyse the extent of this problem throughout the entire Brazilian academic system. While predatory publications remain a small proportion of the overall literature, this proportion has grown exponentially in recent years, with both early-career and established scholars found to have authored papers published in predatory venues. The inclusion of predatory publications in national journal quality rankings has been a key factor in this increase.
The maxim “publish or perish” is more relevant than ever, now in evidence all over the world. As a consequence, academic publishing is booming, with demand to publish in scientific journals having increased exponentially in recent years. This prompted the launch of a succession of new journals, a large number of which operate according to an open access (OA) model whereby the cost of publication is transferred from the reader to the author.
A disturbing side effect of this new publishing environment is the emergence of so-called “predatory publishers”. An unintended consequence of the OA movement, predatory publishers have appeared in many countries, offering quick and easy publication in exchange for a fee, usually without any apparent peer review or quality control. Although concerns have been raised over predatory journals, these are often accounts based on experience of a limited number of journals, or research studies limited to a specific subject.
Our research, recently published in Scientometrics, analyses the extent of this problem throughout the entire Brazilian academic system. Our study uses a quantitative approach based on a large database of published papers (2,349,719 publications from 102,969 individual researchers) and constructed using reliable, replicable, statistical-based methods. Publications data was taken from Lattes, an information system maintained by the Brazilian Government to manage information on science, technology, and innovation related to individual researchers and institutions working in Brazil. By gathering bibliometric data for all academics from 2000 to 2015, we were able to identify predatory publications, their year, and the profiles of authors.
First, we compiled a database of predatory journals using data from the now extinct Beall’s list, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and standard impact factor tables – Journal Citation Reports (previously Thomson Reuters, now Clarivate Analytics) and SJR (Scimago Journal Ranking – Elsevier). While not perfect, and certainly not without its critics, Beall’s list highlighted a large number of allegedly predatory publishers and journals that were being referenced extensively in the research literature.
We set three levels of predatory identifications. The least severe, Level I, contains all journals found in Beall’s list. The second, Level II, contains those journals found in Beall’s list but not also included in the DOAJ. Level III, the most severe, contains those journals included in Level II but which also do not have an impact factor (in either JCR or SJR). The proportion of published papers in each category is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The percentage of predatory publications per year
When looking at the profiles of the researchers publishing in these venues, the results were striking. Contrary to our initial expectations, those to have published significantly in predatory venues are experienced scholars, many years into their careers, and with many previous publications. The idea that young researchers, vulnerable due to their inexperience, are the victims of predatory publishers is simply not corroborated by the data. We cannot, however, attest to whether or not the researchers were fully aware of the practices of these journals at the time of submitting their work. Most concerning about these results is that funding to pay the publishing fees of predatory journals may come from research grants awarded by governmental agencies; part of a vicious circle in which experienced researchers increase their number of publications in order to become more competitive when applying for grants, and subsequently use the funds obtained to publish more papers in predatory journals.
Also interesting is the way we formally acknowledge the quality of a publication in Brazil. We use Qualis as the local assessment of the quality of journals. Similar to the ABS journal rankings, Qualis ranks journals from A1 (the highest quality) to C (lowest quality) and is used to assess the performance of researchers and to evaluate postgraduate courses. Needless to say, Qualis sets the bar and is the main driver of publications in Brazil. When cross-referencing the datasets from Qualis with our own predatory classifications, we find many predatory journals throughout all rankings of Qualis, but mostly in the lower ones. Going further, we investigated whether or not a predatory journal included in Qualis publishes more articles than a non-predatory one. A positive result could go some way to explaining how predatory publications are entering and expanding in the system. Our results show that when a predatory journal enters Qualis, it publishes a significantly higher number of articles than non-predatory journals. That is, the predatory journals classified in Qualis are being targeted by authors in a significant and worrying way.
The message from our research is clear: predatory journals are not yet undermining the academic system of Brazil, but may do so in the future. As we can see in Figure 1, the proportion of the research literature made up of predatory journals is increasing at an alarming rate. We provide strong evidence to suggest Qualis is a key factor in why we see such an increase. If not identified and combatted, predatory publishers may consume important research funds at the expense of the scientific endeavour.
Although our results are restricted to Brazil, they constitute a warning to other countries with a similar academic system. The use of a local journal ranking such as Qualis is not novel or restricted to Brazil; countries such as Australia with the ERA (Excellence in Research Australia) system, Norway with the CRIStin initiative, and Colombia with Publindex, all have their own standards. We suspect that if our study is replicated in these countries, similar results may be found.
Raising awareness of predatory journals and publishers is essential to the sustainable future of academia, based on rigour and relevance. This task should be undertaken by research funding agencies. The results of our research indicate that researchers may be exploiting the inertia of these agencies in combatting the more energetically predatory journals and using governmental funds to publish “questionable” scientific research results.
The data used in our research is publicly available via an online application providing easy access to the database. We hope these simple tools can contribute to minimising the penetration of predatory publishers in the academic system.
This blog post is based on the authors’ article, “Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study”, published in Scientometrics (DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6).
Featured image credit: Brandy S, licensed under a CC0 1.0 license.
Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
About the authors
Marcelo S. Perlin is Assistant Professor at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). He received his PhD in Finance from Reading University – ICMA Centre. His academic interests are related to financial markets, programming in R and scientometrics. You can find more information about Marcelo’s work on his personal website.
Takeyoshi Imasato is Assistant Professor at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). He was Head of Department of the School of Administration from 2014 to 2018. His research interests focus on developing management, organisation and strategy theories, with recent work on academic organisation and publishing.
Denis Borenstein is a full professor in the Management School, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. He received his PhD in Management Science from University of Strathclyde, UK, an MSc in Management Science from Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, and a BSc in Marine Engineering from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His research interests are applied operational research, real time transportation logistics, decision support systems, and scientometrics.
What exactly is the meaning of predatory publishing? The attribute of offering quick and easy publication in exchange for a fee is common in the OA publishing. How did you confirm that the journals do not do any apparent peer review or quality control. It is also a problem that people are still using the impact factor to categorise journals despite the displeasure of the much of the global scientific community against the practice. Doesn’t your finding that experienced scholars, many years into their careers, and with many previous publications publish in the so called predatory journals caution you about using the language? Are you implying that these class of authors are ignorant about meaning of journal quality. This submission simply does not address any concrete concern except probably entrenched anger against the growth of science in the developing areas.
This is a worthwhile piece of work. I wish similar studies were published for other countries, or even for the wider international academic system. I am afraid the OA movement has made a rod for its own back by also criticising impact factors and other measures of citation. It has also done the same by decrying the peer review process (albeit with a push towards more openness, which may be hard to disagree with). I have reviewed for what looked to be quite reputable OA journals – I won’t name them here – and frankly their standards were perfunctory compared with almost directly comparable journals in the legacy publishing literature, even an OA journal that was a direct twin of a published non-OA high-quality, high-status journal. You could argue that this is all in the name of getting publications “out there” for the peer review of colleagues. But I have got to the stage where I prefer to review for non-OA journals because I feel they are less likely to be conflicted by their desire for the fees. It’s a worry, and the OA movement needs to come up with some answers on the quality of publishing in OA journals, whether or not they are predatory. By decrying impact factors of any sort they are removing a key weapon in this task. I think that position needs to be reversed.
The real problem (and probably the reason for this predatory journal explosion) is that the classic journals have become abusive and predatory themselves. For example Springer/Nature journals will reject your paper without explanation and direct you to one of their fee-paying open access for guaranteed acceptance on resubmission.
Worse, the old classic journals do not do peer review often, make decisions based on profitability of your paper and sometimes take months or even over a year to respond. Some do not ever respond. This includes Springer/Nature which did not respond at all to a submission and did not respond to the inquiry about why they did not respond. So, may be these predatory journals are just as predatory as the old corrupted ones. We may have to switch to the new era.