Predatory journals – Himmelfarb Library News

Sometimes researching can be more complicated than it appears. Below, we take a look at predatory publishing, what it is, and how to avoid it.

A title card that says predatory publishing

Narration: A label next in the bottom left corner denotes the speaker as “Rebecca, Librarian, Amature Cartoonist.” — Pp Page 1

Rebecca in the boat, looks down concerned at the sea, where multiple shark fins can be seen poking through the waves. The speech bubble states “But there metaphorical waters can prove treacherous. And unlike real sharks, these threats to scientific knowledge provide little benefit to the scholarly ecosystem”

Narration: “Introducing Predatory Publishing” is at the top of the page. At the bottom, there is a label for the shark, which states “Ponzi, the Shark”
Image: A shark wearing a top hat and bow tie waves a fin, looking smug.

Panel 4 Narration: “But what are predatory publishers?”
Image: Rebecca looking stern, looks forward with a parrot on her shoulder. “Predatory publishers are journals that only exist to make money.”

panel 5
Image: A white man with blonde hair and old fashion clothes, holding onto ship wreckage like Jack in Titanic, looks at a mermaid with brown skin, black hair and a purple tail. In the background there is other evidence of a ship wreck. The man says “What do you mean “make money?” to which the mermaid replies “You didn’t know?” — Pp Page 1

Image: Now under the sea, the mermaid from earlier gestures to a treasure chest full of gold. Other sea life float in the background. She says “Scientific publishing is a huge business. One publisher, had a profit margin of almost 40% in 2023 (1). In contrast, Apple’s was 44% (2). — Pp Page 1

Panel 1 Narration: To best understand how publishers make so much money, one must learn how the publishing process works.
Image: The parrot from earlier says “Polly want an explanation!”

Panel 2
Narration: “Traditional publishing looks something like this. Scientists submit to journals who publish it to the world (ideally). And money flows like this: scientists submit to journals for free (or a small fee) and publishers pay to publish the work to the world, who pay higher costs in return for access. Publishers get work for free that is edited for free and then charge individuals, libraries, ect for access.
Image: A flow chart of a beaker, a journal and the Earth is shown demonstrating the relationship described in the narration.

Narration: This can lead to science being behind a paywall, especially for scientists, schools and others who can’t afford to pay.
Image: Rebecca and Polly the parrot stand on opposite sides of a poster with a picture of a journal on it. The poster says “$$$$ science.” Rebecca, talking to Polly, says “I can’t afford this.” Polly, who is resting on a bird perch, says “Polly can’t even afford a cracker…”

Panel 1
Narration: SO a new model was born: open access. It looks like the traditional model but money flows like this (authors pay to journals to publish their work and journals pay to publish to the world). The idea is the author pays a fee to ensure wider access.
Image: A flow chart of a beaker, a journal and the Earth is shown demonstrating the relationship described in the narration.
Panel 2:
Narration: Ideally, the rest works the same. Scientists submit their best works, it’s peer reviewed and if it passes muster, it’s published like traditional publishing.
Image: We see the Earth in space with an Astronaut floating in the foreground. The astronaut says “I even get access out here!” There is also a UFO floating over the Earth as a gag.

Narration: Except…what if instead of being discerning about what you publish, you just accept everything? After all, the more articles you accept, the more money you make in fees. — Pp 2

Narration: This is the business model of predatory publishers: accept anything and make a profit from the fees. Some tactics of predatory publishers include:
Image: A wanted poster of Ponzi the shark is affixed to a brick wall. On the poster, Ponzi looks alarmed. The text of the poster says “wanted: fraud.”

Narration: Pretending to be respected journals by spoofing the name of a more reputable publication.
Image: A bald Black scientist wearing glasses looks concerned at Ponzi, who looks the same except for a drawn on fake mustache. Both of them stand next to posters. The scientist’s poster says “submit to Nature.” Ponzi’s poster states “submit to Natures.”

Panel 1

Narration: Or they’ll ue the name of a defunct journal that has a better reputation.
Image: Ponzi the shark is seen floating underwater over a human skeleton. There are two labels affixed to each. The skeleton is labeled as “human sciences.” Ponzi is labeled as “human sciences 2.0”
Panel 2:
Narration: They might offer services like peer review with no intention of doing it, or claim rapid turn around times.
Image: A white and yellow tropical fish stares at a piece of paper on a fish hook. The paper says “pls review in 24 hours.” Question marks are shown over the fish’s head.

Narration: The reason this is a huge issue is partially one of quality. Predatory publishers flood scientific literature with B.S that can be dangerous. — Pp 2

Narration: The other issue impacts scientists: those tricked into publishing in these journals can see a hit to their reputations.
Image: A line up of three figures is shown with a text box underneath. The first two figures are literal clowns in full makeup while the third is a scientist with brown skin and brown hair looking horrified in their direction. The text underneath the three states” This issue: Balloon animals found to boost happiness page 8. The speed of trick flowers page 32. New cells found in clinical trials page 41.

Panel 1:
Image: The shipwrecked sailor holding onto wood planks from page 1 floats in the ocean. He asks “So what do we do about this? Give up on open access?”
Panel 2:
Image: Rebecca is seen balancing on the mast of the ship with the sail behind her. He says “of course not! Open science is important. We just need to be careful.”

Narration: Look for red flags. Things like:
Image: A red flag is seen in the sky. On the red flag there is a yellow circle which showcases Ponzi the shark.

Panel 1
Narration: Editors who have frank credentials, lack expertise that matches the journal or don’t exist at all.
Image: A volleyball with a face painted on it in red (much like Wilson in Castaway) rests on a beach. Below it, a text box states: “Editor in Chief: Wilson V. Ball”
Panel 2:
Narration: Having a weird street address for a business or no about page.
Image: An underwater cave is shown, There is a wooden sign in front of the cave that says “home of Natures.”

Panel 1

Narration: You’re naked to submit work entirely unsolicited.
Image: An anglerfish with a letter in the place of its light antenna, floats in the deep sea. With sharp teeth it says “You got mail.”
Panel 2:
Narration: Promising rapid publication.
Image: A stopwatch on a chain is shown with the intervals of 15, 30 and 45 on it. The top interval says “publish.”

Panel 1 Narration: Unsure about a publisher? You can ask a librarian or try using Cabells, a director of publishing opportunities. It identifies predatory publishers. We offer access to Cabells through Himmelfarb.
Image: The interface of Cabells is shown where journals are marked as predatory.

Panel 2

Narration: Good luck!
Image: Rebecca is seen in the bird's nest, giving a salute to the audience. The ocean and sun can be seen behind her,

Sources:

Yup K. How Scientific Publishers’ Extreme Fees Put Profit Over Progress. Published online May 31, 2023. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/neuroimage-elsevier-editorial-board-journal-profit/
Miglani J. Apple Sales And Profits Analysis For FY 2023 — Top 10 Insights. Forrester. Published November 21, 2023. Accessed May 6, 2024. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/apple-sales-and-profits-analysis-for-fy-2023-top-10-insights/
Bueter R. Research Guides: Predatory Publishing: Home. Himmelfarb Health Science Library. Accessed May 29, 2024. https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/PredatoryPublishing/Home

Selecting a journal in which to publish your research is an important decision. With so many journals from which to choose, it can be daunting to compare journals and avoid publishing in a predatory or questionable journal, all while trying to find submission requirements, peer review information, and author guidelines to inform your decision making process. GW users now have access to Cabells Directory of Publishing Opportunities which can help you compare journals and identify predatory journals to avoid!

GW’s access to Cabells includes access to Journalytics and Predatory Reports. The Journalytics portion provides information on reputable journal titles including manuscript and submission guidelines, discipline, intended audience, peer review information, and acceptance rates. This information can help authors compare journals and make an informed decision regarding where to submit a manuscript for publication. Inclusion in Cabells Journalytics is by invitation only and criteria for inclusion can be found in the Journalytics Selection Policy.

The screenshot below is an example of the submission and review information listed for the Journal of Advanced Nursing found in Cabells Journalytics:

Screenshot of submission and review information.

Journalytics also allows you to compare up to 5 journals by selecting the titles you wish to compare, and clicking on the “Compare 5” button at the top of the search results. The screenshot below shows a side-by-side comparison of 5 emergency medicine journals:

The Predatory Reports portion of Cabells tracks journal titles that have been associated with predatory journal publishers based on violations of scholarly publishing standards and best practices. Cabells has established criteria for identifying deceptive, fraudulent, and/or predatory journals and provides a list of violations for each title listed in Predatory Reports. Examples of severe violations include: false qualifications or credential claims; fake ISSNs; fake, non-existent, or deceased editors; false peer review claims; publication of non-academic or pseudo-science papers; false indexing claims; lack of published articles or archives; misleading metrics; and misleading or false fee information. Cabells provides access to the complete list of Predatory Reports Criteria on their website.

The screenshot below shows an example of a list of violations from a title listed on Cabells Predatory Reports:

If you’d like a second opinion, or are unable to find a title you are suspicious of listed on Cabells Predatory Reports, don’t hesitate to use Himmelfarb’s Predatory Journal Check-Up Service by contacting Ruth Bueter (rbueter@gwu.edu).

Whether you want to check to see if a journal in which you are interested in publishing could be a predatory journal, or you want more information about potential journals to which you might want to consider submitting your manuscript, Cabells Directory of Publishing Opportunities can provide you with the concise information you need all from a single, easy-to-use interface! To learn more, or if you have questions about this resource, contact Ruth Bueter (rbueter@gwu.edu).

Tag: Predatory journals

Comic: Predatory Publishing

Ready to Publish? Find the Right Journal with Cabells!

Subscribe By Email