In my opinion you can cite if it is worth doing so. Review if the quality of the ms is good. However, I have sometimes seen that editors of the predatory journals send mss for review but do give the needed time for reviewing.

Thus mss get published without reviewing.

Thank you Subir sir,

I have reviewed more than 20 articles of predatory journals. i agreed, some time papers are garbage.  One my friend reminded me about the predatory journals then start wondering about my effort done so far in reviewing these papers.

thanks

Shahid

Better to avoid reviewing so many mss for predatory journals.

Sorry for the naive question, what is predatory journals? What kind of them?

Sorry, Sergey, but not citing something that has been published and is relevant to your topic is simply a scientific fraud! If, as you say, there is really nothing worth citing (i.e. if you would consider the respective paper unworthy of citing also if it appears in any other journal), then of course you need not cite it, but attempt to "annihilate" somebody's (the author's) work only because you do not like the respective journal is unfortunately not rare nowadays but profoundly dishonest practice. Especially in the time when it is virtually impossible to publish uncensored opinions in the "non-predatory" journals (a situation well known to you: just remember e.g. the story of my "Fallacies and false premises...") more and more authors (especially of unorthodox, non-schematic, not following fashionable trends, i.e. just potentially most valuable papers...) will have no choice beyond publication in journals some others would stigmatize as "predatory"!

And congratulations, Svitlana: your question is of course by no means "naive" - indeed, it is very apt. I'm afraid, the only sincere answer would be "predatory is a journal which I do not like" (or "that publishes papers which I don't like")...

Best wishes - Roman

If you are a zoologist working in taxonomy and going to publish new names or any nomenclatural acts you MUST follow the publication criteria indicated in ICZN (1999) and latter amedments (including these for electonic publications (ICZN 2012). The same is for citing names/nomencatural acts. I an not an orthodox, a law is a law. Sorry, but I will not participate in further discussion.

Thank you all for the answers and useful links.

Thank you guys,

I would like to see more discussion regarding predatory papers. Please share if any bad or good experience from you or your colleague sides.

Thanks

Shahid

To Mark:

1) We should first know what are we speaking about. The question posed by Shahid referred generally to so-called "predatory" journals, you write about quite different, really controversial but specific problem of nomenclatural regulations in zoology.

2) We should remember what is the purpose of scientific research: it is to discover, describe, adequately interprete, the facts and phenomena of the existing world, and honestly publish the scientist's conclusions. "Honestly" means that the conclusions should be presented exactly in agreement with the author's (not publisher's, editor's, reviewer's or anybody else!) true opinion. So, if you wish to really be a scientist (not only to "make career", "climb the monkey's ladder", collect impact factors &c.), you MUST do your very best to avoid any situation that could force you to write something you do not truly believe or write in form you consider not optimal. Nomenclatural or any other rules, regulations &c. (even if bumptiously but falsely described as "laws") are only tools which should help to achieve the goal - if they do not help, they should be changed or removed: the only important aspect of a scientific publication is whether the presented facts are true, suggested interpretations correct, drawn conclusions adequate - and they are or are not true, correct and adequate absolutely irrespective of whether you have or have not observed these or those "rules", followed the "current trends", published in Science or in what S.J.Gould disdainfully derided as "Proceedings of the Philomathematical Society of Pfennighalbpfennig (circulation 533)", passed through 10 "peer"-reviewers or none!.

3) You can accept the results, opinions, interpretations presented by others or you can reject them - both are OK if honestly done; but pretending (or suggesting to others) that they have not been published (this in fact means "not citing"!) is simply a bouncer, and as such scientific fraud!

4) If you do not like (e.g. as in your view "predatory") a journal, you need not to publish in it - but attempts to invalidate the work of those who are of different opinion (or for any other reason decided to choose such edition) is a very dirty foul play!

5) "Predatory" means "living by preying on others", as regards scientific publications this may be translated as "attempting to monopolize", trying to take over and/or control others; it is a somewhat perfidious to brand with this term just those whose main "crime" is the desire to avoid predation!

6) And, by the way, the arrogant "I will not participate in further discussion", evidently meaning: "I have said, so the question has been solved, other's opinions are not important - Roma locuta, causa finita" does not seem appropriate in serious discussion - this is a typical phrase of those who are well aware of the weakness of their position and wish to avoid confrontation with adequate arguments...

Roman

If "only when it is absolutely unavoidable" means "citing when it is worth citing and relevant to the topic. Or citing for criticism, if necessary" then we are in full agreement - sorry that it seemed to suggest (especially with the suggestion to "avoid ... in all aspects") rather a kind of "total opposition"...

I see you're all worried about what bloody journal you are publishing in, well you should be looking for the quality content etc and what actually the paper says. Bellamy and many others publish junk in so called learned accepted journals (obviously they are mates with the editors etc who wouldn't have a clue about the subject matter) and anyone you tries to compete is weeded out by getting his work rejected for no good reason at the control gate stage. Much of science is wrong because of control of incompetent bully boys and this is examplified in politics. And that includes the likes of Jefrey Beall whose a librarian and knows nothing about science.

A small additional illustration to the question of "predatory" and "not predatory" journals:

At the middle of March (few days after my last comment in this discussion) the renowned (of course "not predatory"...) journal Zootaxa published a paper (Bílý S., M. Volkovitsh: New unavailable names in Buprestidae (Coleoptera) and a short comment on the electronic publication of new names - Zootaxa 4243, 2) - a rudely evil-minded slander against me and my publications. I sent to the Editors my reply, showing that the accusations are absolutely false (Procrustomachia is not "electronic" journal, names published in it are perfectly available, &c.), but it has been rejected with the Editor-in-Chief's comment that "Zootaxa certainly will not ... publish your uncensored answer ... This is the main difference between normal peer-reviewed journals and un-reviewed ones". Unfortunately, he is right: the possibility to publish the opinions of the author (not publisher, editor or reviewer) in the formulation considered by the author (not publisher, editor or reviewer) adequate is indeed the main difference between "predatory" (uncensored) and "normal peer-reviewed" journals... But nevertheless - as I wrote to the Editors - "I did not think that it may be considered applicable also to situation like this: hitherto I believed that preventing the victim of published unprovoked mendacious assault from publication of effective defence was the "speciality" of some oppressive political systems (well known to me from the times before 1989...), while in normal communities even a serial murderer has right to present his plea in his words, using the arguments and formulations he considers adequate and convincing. It is sad that the editors of Zootaxa decided to deprive me of this basic human right". 

So much of the difference between "predatory" and "not predatory"; just this was the main incentive that prompted me to launch the uncensored (what for some publishers, editors, and - strange but true... - for some colleagues, means "predatory") Procrustomachia [those eventually interested may download my "essay""What is and what is not Procrustomachia?" from ResearchGate].

Calodema was launched in 2006 for the above reasons as well! I was about time these journals were more responsible to the taxpayers who fund them; conversely Giovts and legal people should be more interested in whats happening with these "bully boy" journals. None of them are perfect, in fact most of them are corrupt as they use the referring system to weed out competitors as well as competing ideas. Thats NOT the way science can advance! Zootaxa has published heaps of erroneous papers- why? because they didn't refer to relevant work!! Its all political and not in the interests of science. These editors and scientists should be tried for treason really!

Predatory or not, if it is relevant to your topic you must include and discuss it, for good or for ill. If you don´t just for ¨avoiding,¨ it is unethical. 

I think (for you) no