JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Predatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the authors or editors involved.

Objective:

Our objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.

Methods:

Potential online predatory journals we randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2,204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.

Results:

249 complete survey responses were analyzed. 39% of editors surveyed were not aware they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. 22% of authors confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 76% of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33% of authors felt similarly (p<0.01). Only 26% of authors were aware of Beall’s list of predatory journals vs. 49% of editors (p<0.01). 30% of authors believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 88% of authors surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.

Conclusions:

Authors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. While more informed, this did not prevent the unwitting listing of editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.