Disclosure: This page may contain affiliate links. This means, at no additional cost to you, we receive a commission if you click through and make a purchase.
In a recent Twitter poll we conducted, we asked “Is there any justifiable reason for publishing in a predatory journal?”, we received 56 responses with 86.8% (46 votes) saying that there was never a legitimate reason and 13.2% (7 votes) saying that there could be a legitimate reason.
We recognize that this is a small sample size and some people may have voted just to be controversial (Twitter polls are anonymous) but if we assume that 13.2% of the 5,433,853 scholars listed at OECD (see Table 1) believe that there could be a legitimate reason to publish in a predatory journal, that means that 717,266 scholars believe that they could justify publishing in a predatory journal. Even if we dropped the number to 5% of scholars, this would mean that 271,692 scholars felt that they had a justifiable reason to publish in a predatory journal.
Financial Analysis
If we extend this analysis a little further, and of the 717,266 (resp. 271,692) scholars who believe it was acceptable to publish in a predatory journal and, in any one year, 5% of them did, that would be 35,863 (resp. 5% of the 271,692 = 13,585) would publish a paper.
If we take an Article Processing Charge (APC) of $500, that means that $17,931,656 (resp. $6,792,294) has been taken away from funding legitimate research and has lined the pockets of the predatory publishers. We are not sure about you, but we feel that a lot of research could be done with 18 million dollars.
We realise that this is very superficial analysis, but it does give you some idea of the amounts of money that is being spent on predatory publishing. It is probably a lot more than that as we have not even considered the number of people that get persuaded by all the spam emails that gets sent.
In fact, in 2014 it was said that there were 420,000 predatory articles published (see “Predatory open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics“: DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2). At $500 per article that is 210 million dollars. The number of predatory articles published has probably risen since 2014.
Why would you publish in a predatory journal?
In one of our other blog posts (Why is predatory publishing evil?) we made the case that you should never submit to a predatory journal, yet the poll we conducted does not entirely agree with that view. We stand by the conclusion of our previous article but wonder why some scholars might feel that it is appropriate to publish in a predatory journal?
During the poll, and as a follow up when reporting the results (see Figure 2) we asked for the reasons why it was felt that it was okay to publish in a predatory journal. These are some of the reasons given.
- “To demonstrate you can get literally anything published in them, and expose them. Other than that, nothing.” We actually found this refreshing. There have been a number of reports of sting operations, with a recent one that we particular like called “What’s the Deal with Birds” (see Figure 3). We would particularly encourage you to look at the Acknowledgements. It is worth accessing the paper just to read those.
- “The fact that they exist means that they are exploiting a gap in the market.” This, of course, is the whole basis for predatory publishing, indeed any business. If there were not a gap in the market, then predatory publishing would not exist.
Unlike other businesses though, the gap in the market is an exploitative model. It preys on those that are either desperate to publish, or those that do not fully understand how scientific publishing really works and believes that their work is being peer reviewed and the articles actually have merit. Their articles may indeed have merit but this cannot be validated by submitting to a predatory publisher.
Moreover, once you have published in a predatory journal and later discovered that the article is not being read or cited, you have wasted the article, and your money, as it is unlikely that you will be able to withdraw it and submit it elsewhere.
- “One possible barrier is individuals not being familiar with the English language.” If a paper is not peer reviewed, it means that anything can get published, no matter how good, or bad, the English is.
Even with legitimate journals, this is a problem. When we review papers (in our day job) we try not to say “The English must be improved” as this must be so demoralizing to the author if they have no way of doing this. Having said that, the English in a peer reviewed scientific paper must be of a good standard, so that the readers can understand it and so that the ambiguity is removed so that the work is reproducible.
If you have the money to pay the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for a predatory journal, we would suggest that the money would be better spent using an English editing service and then sending the paper to a traditional journal where there are no APCs.
However, we would warn against just using an English language service without acknowledging this in the paper. In “Is There a Role for Publication Consultants and How Should Their Contribution be Recognized?“, the authors provide advice and guidance about using an editor. One of the reasons given (and there are many) is that the readers have a right to know whether the English, as written, is solely down to the author(s) as the level of English might be used for decisions such as promotion and hiring.
- “Lack of resources for academics to undertake sophisticated research (this has to be an issue in some countries.” We agree that this is an issue, but it is still not a good reason to submit papers to predatory journals. Indeed, even scholars working in the same country will face variations of this issue. If you are working in a university which is not as well funded as universities in the same country, or where your School/Faculty is not so well funded as others, you will face a variation of this issue. But, this is not a reason to submit to a predatory journal.
It does lead to the question, “So how can I do the research I want to do?” The simple answer is you may not be able to. If you need access to some specific equipment, but don’t have that access, then you can’t do that research. Of course, you could try and collaborate, write a grant proposal, beg, borrow or steal (actually don’t steal), but if the resource is not available, you cannot do the research.
You may need to be realistic about the research that you are able to do and reframe it, so that you can carry out high quality research that is possible within your own capabilities and resources. It might be a difficult choice to change your research area, but this is much more preferable to submitting inferior research to predatory journals. This can only damage your CV, as we discuss in “Will publishing in predatory journals harm your CV?“.
Are there other reasons?
In addition to the reasons given in response to our Twitter poll, there are other reasons why some researchers will feel that it is justifiable to publish in predatory journals.
One of the most frequently given reasons is that we now operate in a publish or perish world and if you don’t publish, then getting another job, getting promoted or even just meeting key performance indicators for an annual appraisal is difficult. We understand this but (again) these are not justifiable reasons to publish in predatory journals.
In fact, the blame should not be put at the door of the publish or perish world. We work in an ever more competitive world and that will increase year-on-year, but having to work ever harder to stay still (the so called red queen effect) is no reason to find ways to circumvent accepted practices, by publishing in predatory journals. You should still focus on quality, not quantity.
The reason that some resort to predatory journals is because they can get away with it. Much of the fault lies with promotion and hiring panels, and those carrying out annual appraisals. It is no longer possible to take CVs at face value. We must check if a CV contains articles published in predatory journals, and call people out on it.
If candidates believe that their articles appearing in predatory journals will be discovered, and held against them, they might think twice about spending the money on a predatory journal, as it would be wasted money. Indeed, it might even be seen as a negative when a hiring or promotion panel asks about it. Not only have you wasted money, but the fact that you have wasted that money will be the reason why you don’t get the job will be a double slap in the face. It is suddenly not worth publishing in predatory journals.
Another reason that is often given is general ignorance. We can accept this, to a certain extent as you don’t know what you don’t know. But others do know. Colleagues you work with, your PhD supervisor, your mentor, people you meet at conferences, even the person/funding body who is paying the APC, may have a view and be able to offer advice and guidance.
We could forgive publishing in a predatory journal once (though we would hate to think that we are lining the pockets of predatory publishers), through ignorance, but your peers, mentors, colleagues, friends; even enemies, should tell you and explain the problems in publishing in a predatory journal. It is beholden on all of us to “have the back” of all those who are publishing their research.
Conclusion
We have said it before, and we say it again. There is never a good reason to publish in a predatory journal. You should not do it.
The only reason when it might be appropriate is for a sting operation, just to prove that the journal is predatory. Even this wastes somebody’s money and gives the predatory publisher some revenue. It could also be argued that you would be better off spending your time writing a legitimate journal article. But, if a sting operation means exposing a journal for what it is, then we would be supportive of doing this. But, ultimately, we want to get to a position where predatory publishers wither on the vine and go out of business.
But, the take home message from this article is that you should never submit to a predatory journal.
| Country | Number of Scholars |
|---|---|
| AUT | 59,911 |
| BEL | 31,069 |
| BRA | 445,514 |
| CAN | 172,490 |
| CHE | 34,446 |
| COL | 146,481 |
| CRI | 11,050 |
| CZE | 18,685 |
| DEU | 407,132 |
| DNK | 17,215 |
| ESP | 167,063 |
| EST | 4,209 |
| FIN | 14,893 |
| FRA | 120,152 |
| GBR | 156,295 |
| GRC | 18,968 |
| HUN | 24,119 |
| IRL | 9,651 |
| ITA | 91,291 |
| JPN | 224,124 |
| KOR | 219,598 |
| LTU | 12,148 |
| LUX | 954 |
| LVA | 7,022 |
| MEX | 387,391 |
| NLD | 68,710 |
| NOR | 33,176 |
| NZL | 16,834 |
| POL | 95,739 |
| PRT | 33,160 |
| RUS | 597,067 |
| SVK | 12,204 |
| SVN | 7,178 |
| SWE | 34,710 |
| TUR | 151,763 |
| USA | 1,581,424 |
| Total | 5,433,835 |
Acknowledgements
The header image is adapted from https://www.flickr.com/photos/number7cloud/33301620478 under Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)