There is a lot of information on the subject already published:

- Beall J (2017) What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27(2):273-278.

- Eriksson S & Helgesson G (2017) The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 20(2):163-170.

- Laine C & Winker MA (2017) Identifying predatory or pseudo-journals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 27(2):285-291.

- Shamseer L , Moher D , Maduekwe O , Turner L , Barbour V , Burch R , Clark J , Galipeau J , Roberts J , & Shea BJ (2017) Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med 15(1):28.

- Shen C & Björk B (2015) 'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med 13:230.

En there is also a website with advice:

ALPSP , DOAJ , INASP , ISSN , LIBER , OASPA , STM , and UKSG (2018) Think. Check. Submit. https://thinkchecksubmit.org/check/04/13/2018

But the key point is very much like buying something. So with papers: What am I buying?

A) Peer-review to tell me if the paper has merit - Is the Peer-review fair? - It it honest and real or it is a fake?

B) A printed journal and/or a visible stable website, associated to a DOI number, easily accessible - Does their website pass?

C) To appear in a DB searchable and as visible as possible, preferably one that keeps track of citation - so I know who read my work and found it useful - Is the journal indexed?

D) Clear information of the journal's scope, features and PRICES - Do I have to pay and how much?

E) A good production staff, so my paper is produced professionally.

So you can tell a lot from some key points:

Is the publisher registered at WOS/Scopus an other well established indexing services?

Is the website clear and their information can be verified easily? - or - Does it take a clever detective to track the provider's history in the publishing market?

Is the publisher clear about their editorial board? - i.e. Can you find the editor's and reviewers listed at academic or research institutions? Are these people respected in their corresponding fields?

Is the publisher clear about publication costs?

Does the journal's declared scope meets the actual papers?

AND VERY IMPORTANT: Are the papers published sounding contributions to the field? - we all can judge those close to our respective fields.

Best wishes, Rogelio

Very well summed up viewpoint. Thanks for sharing. I have one concern regarding the view of Dolos list on DOAJ. As DOAJ is associated with publishers reservations have been expressed about its validity in identifying genuine journals because of commercial angle. But so is Scopus (an index highly rated by academic institutions) which is associated with Elsevier a publisher with commercial interest.

Respectfully submitted,

Amitav

Sure, you are correct: all industries face the same conflict "ethics vs. profit".

And like in every other human activity, market forces will shape the publishing industry of the future. Those failing to offer a good deal to authors and readers will eventually collapse. Right now, there is a lot of pressure for a major shift in the scientific communication industry, and the final outcome seems hard to forecast:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-schmitt/academic-journals-the-mos_1_b_6368204.html?utm_hp_ref=education&ir=Education

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/with-no-open-access-deal--uc-breaks-with-elsevier--65554

Solomon DJ (2014) A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ 2:e365.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7

https://www.nature.com/collections/whzhpfljwc

Best wishes,

Rogelio

You may find useful this contribution to a similar thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_InTech_Open_Science_a_predatory_or_a_ligitimate_publisher#view=5c76edc5a4714b149044a873

Dear Amitav,

Indeed it is important to systematically check the validity of whitelists, including checking if they are funded by publishers. To be added to the Dolos list as a fake white list, it is necessary that the whitelist:

- Is funded by at least one predatory publisher.

- And is used to very clearly defend the interests of the predatory publisher in question.

For the DOAJ, it was obvious. It is funded by Frontiers (a predatory publisher) and has been used in several statements to make this editor for a serious publisher, while it is not.

Regarding Scopus, although we must be vigilant because this list is funded by Elsevier, a publisher, we have studied this case well and concluded that this list did not meet the criteria set. Scopus will not be added to the Dolos list.

Best regards,

Alexandre.

Dear Alexandre Georges ,

While Publishers such as Frontiers In, PLoS, BMC exploit the open access model, using the open access model does not make you predatory... you may buy open access in Nature and in Science... these are not predatory.

More important factors are: "honest peer-review", "detection of plagiarism and results forgery", "indexation in recognized DB", "reputed editors and reviewers", "clarity in the pricing schemes", amongst the most important.

We must remember, this industry is a business, it needs profit to survive and stay healthy (they have to pay IT services, programmers, language checking and production staff, etc. ) and we all need the journals to stay, because - when a journal shuts down its collection of papers gets buried in some libraries - it becomes very difficult to find those papers. On internet era, it can be worst, the whole material may get lost completely.

My guess is "Frontiers In" funded DOAJ to separate their competitors into fair and dishonest competitors (predatory), in that way they can focus on competing with their equal, and discredit (set aside) those using deceptive and unethical practices.

Science communication industry is bound to change in the near future, most if not all publishers will move to 100% Open Access - would you transfer them all from the white list to the predatory list?

Best wishes,

Rogelio

Dear Rogelio Rodríguez-Sotres,

Regarding open access:

PLoS is open access, yet it is not on the Dolos list.

Frontiers is open access, and it is on the Dolos list.

Hindawi is open access, yet it is not on the Dolos list.

MDPI is open access, and it is on the Dolos list.

Regarding the rest:

Springer is not completely open access, and it is not on the Dolos list.

Taylor & Francis is not completely open access, yet it is on the Dolos list (reasons explained here: https://www.professeur-alexandre-georges.info/tf-file-translation).

The difference between those who are on the Dolos list and those who are not there? Scientific rigor. Some are rigorous, others are not. Those who are not rigorous are on the Dolos list. That's all. This is not subject to debate and those on the Dolos list are definitely recorded on it.

Best regards,

Alexandre.

Dear Alexandre Georges ,

To make it clear I do not defend "Frontiers In", nor PLoS, nor BMC, nor any other publisher, as I said they are all business, it is not personal. This is about the concept of "who is a publisher with unethical deceptive practices and who is profitable, but at least honest and ethical in their approach".

After making that clear, I must say that "Frontiers in" has truly marginal practices, and although they have joined DOJA and ICMJE, these organisms do not really supervise their members.

1. Dolos list: You administer Dolos list so it is your prerogative to include or leave out any publisher based on the criteria you have established and on the evidence you have collected. In any case, "Frontiers In" was also on Beall's list.

2. Peer-review: "Frontiers In" Journal's have a peer-review process with comparable stringency to PLoS ONE, and in the range of BMC (about 10% rejection or less). This is meaningful, since it shows the publisher trade of losses for reputation (Point in their favour√).

3. Author contact: "Frontiers In" chase possible editors, who are convinced to invite authors around a subject, but at least their staff has the decency to check if the invited author has a reputation in the filed and verify that the subject is within the scope of the journal (half point in favour, half against = no points)

4. Impact and indexation: Some of the journals run by PLoS ONE, BMC and "Frontiers In" have higher impact index than 75% of Elsevier's journals. That means readers find a number of papers useful. Some papers may be crap, but there is crap on every journal, even Science and Nature (who can forget about water's memory). Point in their favour √

5. Pricing: all three, PLoS , BMC and "Frontiers In", have very clear websites indicating the cost of open access in their journals and they make explicit mention of the APC to every potential author. Point in their favour √

6. Editorial Board: Unlike PLoS and BMC, "Frontiers In" sacked the editor's in chief" and seems to be doing fine without them. Their publication model may be considered to relaxed, because one of their "novel criteria" is to "give any author a chance for rebuttal", which may lead to an never-ending thread of arguments - who has time for that. Point against X

You can read more about "Frontiers In" editorial here:

https://forbetterscience.com/2015/10/28/is-frontiers-a-potential-predatory-publisher/

In summary, "Frontiers In" is what I should call a marginal publisher, some of their practices are predatory, but it still shows some respect for their role in the science communication industry. They will have to correct their path in the future, or take a deserved seat at the "predatory publisher" list.

PLoS and BMC seem less problematic, but they have their sins.

For instance, PLoS started by having no indexation and refusing to get indexed, relying on their own statistics. At some point they were force to enter the WOS, by the market itself. PLoS has the policy of looking at the "quality of science" and "originality", but they do not consider about how trendy it might be, so a lot of PLoS papers have no citations, other than self-cites. At some point Jeffrey Beall did attack PLoS ONE and label it a predatory:

https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/08/23/ongoing-questions-about-plos-ones-peer-review/

And the publisher counter attack:

https://sfoap.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/jeffrey-bealls-unprofessional-attack-on-plos-one/

Opinions are clearly divided:

https://www.quora.com/Is-publishing-in-PLOS-ONE-career-suicide

Do not forget, PLoS is a Harvard initiative, and that has weight in the industry.

Regarding BMC, do not forget it is own by Springer-Nature, they have a reputation to cover, and they are probably the most serious of the three, nevertheless, there was a scandal in 2014 about a number of papers accepted and published on the grounds of a forged peer-review process (Article The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics

In the end, it is all about balance:

who pays the bills vs. who makes your reputation - the worst are those without reputation, caring only about bills.

Best wishes,

Rogelio

Some journals claim, and mention in their website as well as print journal, that their journal is indexed in "index copernicus", but their journal cant be seen in the list of journals in the site of index copernicus. Is it possible that the journal is indexed but not shown in the website of copernicus? Such instances may misguide the author and the author ends up publishing in such journals, but in the end without getting enough credit?

If the journal is genuinely indexed with Index Copernicus it should show up in their Website. If not retrieved from the Copernicus Website the journal is making a false claim.

Thank you Dr Amitav Banerjee ..

Dear Alexandre Georges ,

I had already read your comment on Taylor and Francis, which seems fine, except for it is based mostly on what they have allowed to one particular journal. Certainly, their impact/price ratio has a low average, and their Journal's list is not as impressive as any of the other top 5 publishers in science communication.

But I am really intrigued about Hindawi, there is little argument against it not making your list, when there is clear evidence of their predatory behaviour:

Bohannon J (2013) Who's afraid of peer review? Science 342(6154):60-5.

Butler D (2013) Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing. Nature 495(7442):433-5.

Being your criteria so strict, you may want to consider adding them to your list.

Best wishes,

Rogelio

I think we are being kind to Scopus. I know instances where as soon a journal switches its publisher in favor of Elsevier it gets indexed in Scopus without any waiting period. I have been reviewer of such journals so I know first hand.

So most indexing bodies are suspect due to conflict of interest.

Respectfully submitted,

Amitav

Certainly Scopus policies have been brought into questioning at a related site (tweeter). It was Jeaffrey Beall who warned about possibly predatory journals within scopus indexed Journal list. Unfortunately, the original paper he cited (Haley JE (2018) Is Scopus Polluting Its Own Database by Indexing Junk articles? , A Case Study of Five Journals. SSRN archives.) was withdrawn and it is unclear to what extent the problem is just a few isolated mishaps or a case of deliberate corruption within Scopus staff.

One of the Journals under analysis in the aforementioned publication was "Journal of Social Sciences Research (ISSN: 2411-9458 ), with Scopus impact ~0.37". But the paper's author mixed the name of this journal with the abbreviation JSSR (Journal of Social Science Research (ISSN: 2321-1091)" which belongs to a different journal, indexed by WOS with an impact factor of ~1.4.

Nevertheless, the J. Social Sciences Research is indeed indexed in Scopus and has 0 citations in 2017 for any document in 2016!!! - Why is it still on the DB? It even seems to have been removed from

If you look at the Journal site (

https://arpgweb.com/journal/journal/7

), it looks doggy

For instance their indexation data (

https://arpgweb.com/journal/journal/7/inde

) mixing indexing services with global search engines (such as google scholar), pointing to some of the providers but not to others, and so on.

The advertised editorial board includes researchers from South Asia, Middle east and Africa, and only the Chief Editor is from a developed Country (Italy).

Another serious allegation was the case of two Journals from Venezuela (Opción and Espacios), with very low impact indexes, and accused of paying authors to cite their published articles (no proof was given though) to keep their Scopus status.

Part of the problem is the amount of material these DB are indexing. It becomes almost impossible to track everything to make sure every paper complies with science communication ethics. So DB operate with a few very ill-defined criteria, such as:

"Good coverage in the country of origin for editors and authors

Acceptable (ethical) editorial policy

Verifiable peer review practices

Consistent and in-time publication of issues throughout the years"

In my opinion Scopus is a large enough DB and has a reputation to protect. I hope they react to this claims and correct the issue, for the good of science communication. But if they do not... let us be attentive:

We need to spot those predatory publishers, no matter how well they dress for the festival.

Best Wishes

Rogelio

It is good to note that the U.S. Government has no gone after Predatory Publishers by fining the "Omics" group $50 million. See story below:

https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2019/04/predatory-science-publisher-hit-50-million-ftc-fines?et_cid=6664549&et_rid=413228021&et_cid=6664549&et_rid=413228021&linkid=Mobius_Link

According to me, there is a list which is updated almos each year with predatory editorials. However, it is questionable if they really are or not.

Any author should suspect a journal to be predatory if it accepts and publishes any article within few days or at most couple of weeks of submission. There is cut-throat competition even among predatory journals - some even promise to publish within three days of submission!

Erik Cuevas - are you referring to Beall's List of Predatory Publishers and List of Predatory Journals? Because of threats, including legal action against him and the University he works for he discontinued the list. Others have the list and keep it available, including www.predatoryjournals.com and one individual has started a new list (the person who began this post, the Dolos List).

Beall's list was valuable because of his work, and because he did set criteria which most of us agree are useful for considering which journals are predatory. You might argue about some of his listings, or why he removed some, but it was based on criteria and not just some personal opinion not based on any reason.

DOAJ provides a list of open access journals they include and a which they remove and the reason.

Some good publishers for scientific articles are: Nature-springer, ACS , RSC, Elsevier, Wiley, Sage, MDPI..

Most predatory journals are cash and carry. They accept any paper @Phuong

I recently ran across a new source for information on predatory journals on a webpage about scholarly publishing. I have not checked out the list, but considering they have strong criteria for inclusion it is remarkable they already have around 12,000 journals on their blacklist. See: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/05/01/cabells-predatory-journal-blacklist-an-updated-review/?informz=1

Another way to identify them is that they are mostly not peer reviewed before publishing.

Have a look also at the "Dolos list".