Dear Nicolas

Raising awareness and having a discussion on predatory journals and alike (depending on the definition) is a good thing, but I'm not sure whether RG is the best place for naming, shaming and listing.

Yet, I’ll share some thoughts and practices that pertain directly or indirectly to this matter:

When I receive an ‘invitation’ from a predatory journal (or should we say anti-scientific journal?), I immediately mark the sender in my spam filter. With a bit of experience it takes about 1/10 of a second to recognize such a journal. I currently receive just a few invitations per week and this was much more in the past, so I assume it helps.

Occasionally I check Beall’s list https://beallslist.net/ when I come across a published paper or publisher of unknown reputation to me. This is not full proof, but at least provides some information to consider.

For the field of paleontology, I occasionally browse through the excellent journal list of Kenneth De Baets in order to find a suitable journal to publish. https://www.gzn.nat.fau.eu/palaeontologie/team/wissenschaftler/de-baets/journals-for-paleontological-research/

If the name of a journal in the field of paleontology is not on this list, it may be a good indication of an anti-scientific journal. This list is particularly useful to early career scientists in the field, since it contains also information on metrics, like impact factors, and that is considered very important by our administrators and funding agencies (but rather unscientific – other discussion).

I once wrote a critical comment in the newsletter of The Micropalaeontological Society (TMS) on a specific new journal in the field of paleontology by a predatory publisher and called for a reaction by editorial board members including the Editor-in-Chief that were also (esteemed) TMS members (see pdf for details). Perhaps surprisingly, this reaction never came. None of the editors took a stand. Perhaps some or most did not even know they were listed as editor. On the positive side: the journal was terminated after some years for lack of submissions.

This brings me to a core problem with predator journals: as long as established scientists fall into the trap of being ‘honored’ by becoming an editorial board member we exacerbate the problem of predatory/anti-scientific journals.

I planned to keep this reply short – and utterly failed. I’m looking forward to seeing more responses.

Dear Nicolas

Raising awareness and having a discussion on predatory journals and alike (depending on the definition) is a good thing, but I'm not sure whether RG is the best place for naming, shaming and listing.

Yet, I’ll share some thoughts and practices that pertain directly or indirectly to this matter:

When I receive an ‘invitation’ from a predatory journal (or should we say anti-scientific journal?), I immediately mark the sender in my spam filter. With a bit of experience it takes about 1/10 of a second to recognize such a journal. I currently receive just a few invitations per week and this was much more in the past, so I assume it helps.

Occasionally I check Beall’s list https://beallslist.net/ when I come across a published paper or publisher of unknown reputation to me. This is not full proof, but at least provides some information to consider.

For the field of paleontology, I occasionally browse through the excellent journal list of Kenneth De Baets in order to find a suitable journal to publish. https://www.gzn.nat.fau.eu/palaeontologie/team/wissenschaftler/de-baets/journals-for-paleontological-research/

If the name of a journal in the field of paleontology is not on this list, it may be a good indication of an anti-scientific journal. This list is particularly useful to early career scientists in the field, since it contains also information on metrics, like impact factors, and that is considered very important by our administrators and funding agencies (but rather unscientific – other discussion).

I once wrote a critical comment in the newsletter of The Micropalaeontological Society (TMS) on a specific new journal in the field of paleontology by a predatory publisher and called for a reaction by editorial board members including the Editor-in-Chief that were also (esteemed) TMS members (see pdf for details). Perhaps surprisingly, this reaction never came. None of the editors took a stand. Perhaps some or most did not even know they were listed as editor. On the positive side: the journal was terminated after some years for lack of submissions.

This brings me to a core problem with predator journals: as long as established scientists fall into the trap of being ‘honored’ by becoming an editorial board member we exacerbate the problem of predatory/anti-scientific journals.

I planned to keep this reply short – and utterly failed. I’m looking forward to seeing more responses.

Dear Robert,

Thanks a lot for your comment. I was not aware of your comment in TMS and am glad to hear about the fate of the journal you mentioned. You are maybe right about RG being not the best place for naming a predatory published and one of its journals. Given that they gave me a ridiculous deadline at the end of December 2020 to submit a paper for their next issue, their knowledge of how science works is so poor that I guess I might just have let them die without saying anything. I regret I might have overreacted and will edit the post about the name of the journal. But I will keep the name of the publisher though, I've read a bit about them, and don't think it's a bad thing that colleagues are made aware that they are predatory. It's just that as many, I see the expansion of truly bad behavior in publishing which makes me really sad. Equally sad is the fact that the publisher of one of the highest IF journal in science has multiplied its offer towards numerous, very expensive open-access journals in nearly all possible domains of natural sciences by capitalizing on the name of their main asset (you'll notice this time I managed not to name it), though I understand that from a business point of view, it's a logical step forward...

🙂

(from my Android phone)

Publishing houses need to make some benefit, including some profit, in return from their work.

((you possibly noticed that when publishing with the major publishing companies the proofs are handled by Indians, Filipinos or Hongkong Chineses ... to reduce cost and increase profit))

They "offer" open access but there is a cost attached for the authors (or their institutions). We know that ... that is legal ... it is merely capitalism and there is no real problem with this business plan (except if there is an obvious abuse).

Today the problem is with some new comers in the market that are either very agressive or/and fraud!

Now there are other business plans: the diamond open access (better than green open access) with no cost attached either for the authors or the readers. Such business plan relies on not-for-profit society, organisation or foundation, on advertising, etc.

Authors have always the choice --- if their research presents relevant/significant contributions to science --- to publish in open access at the lowest cost. We understand minor contributions will be publish in journals with a poor reviewing process ... they should not be cited ... their IF will remain low and they will disappear with no track record.

😉 my modest contribution to the debate

Hi Nicolas

It appears I was a bit unclear, because I don't have a problem with naming and shaming here. It's rather that these discussion threads are rather volatile. The information is being read now and hopefully gets some attention and then it will gradually fade again. I realize however, that other ways to create a more permanent record of journals one should avoid take much more time and may in the end just resemble parts of Beall's list.

Hi Bruno, thanks a lot, very interesting indeed and sad to see how the community seems divided with respect to mdpi journals in this discussion. MDPI has had not less than 2 big scandals about their predatory behavior in the past. Then they started to behave better, there hasn't been any more story in a while but they are clearly fishing a lot of for special issues, associated editors and so on.

As a recently published author, I have had an avalanche of offers from journals that I have never heard of, many with deadlines of a couple of weeks, and many asking for payment.

Thanks for sharing, Brian. Be very careful in your choice of journals, indeed. Checking the reputation of the publisher is important.

Nicolas, I am mostly retired without institutional support, and have no intention of paying to publish. Also, many of the journals who have invited me to publish are not even remotely related to my field of study. Regards.

I like the list Kenneth De Baets created: https://www.gzn.nat.fau.de/palaeontologie/team/wissenschaftler/de-baets/journals-for-paleontological-research/

If a journal is not on the list, it may not be a legit journal to publish paleontological research in (although there may be some exceptions).

I would like to add a predator journal to your list. It is Open Journal of Geology, which does NOT follow any accepted standard for review and publication. Unfortunately, so far, some of the papers published in this journal have been retracted because of extensive plagiarism and academic misconduct.

Merci pour l'information. Très souvent on m'envoie des messages pour publier dans des revues mais bien sûr on ne répond pas.

Dear Shahab Varkouhi ,

Indeed, the journal “Open Journal of Geology” (https://m.scirp.org/journal/ojg ) is suspect because the publisher behind it is. “Scientific Research Publishing” (SCIRP) is mentioned in the Beall’s list: https://beallslist.net/ Other red flags are:

-Misleading info about Web of Science suggesting a link (or impact factor) while there is none

-The index in the Clarivate database Zoological Record seems to be true but has nothing to do with the ESCI and SCIE indexing which is linked to a future or existing impact factor

-Vague (incomplete) info about APC

-Misleading metrics like Citefactor (see for other examples: https://beallslist.net/misleading-metrics/ )

-Contact info???

-See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

So, in conclusion (despite their misleadingly looking professional lay-out): a journal (and publisher) to stay away from.

Best regards.