Are predatory journals the publishing equivalent of what Donald Trump might call ¡°a bad hombre¡±? our colleague asked in a recent . In just published, we dived in to have a look.

For the unfamiliar, the term ¡°predatory journals¡± has been used to refer to online-only scholarly publishing entities with murky operations. They claim to be open access and to provide basic editorial services (peer review, perpetual archiving), yet they are failing on all accounts. They make money by collecting fees (article processing charges) from authors who publish with them.

However, we¡¯re calling them ¡°illegitimate publishing entities¡± instead of ¡°predatory journals¡±. In our opinion, these entities should be considered similar to the pseudo banking sites that sprang up in the early days of email, enticing people to send money abroad. They are not technically ¡°journals¡± as they appear not to be authorised or in accordance with accepted publishing standards or rules.

In addition, the term ¡°predatory¡± suggests that that the problem is one-way (that such entities are preying on innocent researchers), when, in fact, the relationship might be more symbiotic (some authors knowingly participate). ¡°Predatory¡± also implies nefarious intent. Yet, in our observations, caught up inadvertently in this labelling is also a subgroup of highly localised, usually amateur, publishing efforts. Their inability to abide by (or their indifference to) the basic standards of publishing does not absolve them, however.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Thousands of these impostors are infiltrating the world of scientific publishing. And they are possibly giving a voice to very low-quality or bogus research (aka ¡°alternative facts¡±), whereby agendas can be spun and spurious data released stealthily, free from the watchful eye of peer review. Even more disturbing is the likelihood that they are publishing real research that will never truly see the light of day. This jeopardises a basic tenet of scholarly publishing ¨C to enable the results of research to be known for others to build upon.

From where we sit, at the Ottawa Hospital¡¯s Centre for Journalology (ie, within biomedicine), the moral stakes of publishing in such shoddy entities are possibly highest, given the ethical and societal implications (such as impacts on future patient treatment outcomes). Taxpayer dollars are being used to fund research and pay for publications that are buried in the pages of illegitimate entities, never to be incorporated into health decisions or care.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

In January 2017, the ¡°blacklist¡± of scholarly publishing containing the names and URLs of these entities went dark, leaving a gaping hole. Beall¡¯s List, as it was called (named after its curator), provided those who were interested with a reference list of, essentially, where not to publish. What most did not consider, however, was the serious lack of science and rigour in the way that Beall made decisions about which entities made the list. The criteria were: (1) not evidence-based; (2) applied arbitrarily; and (3) applied unilaterally by Beall. This is concerning given the amount of trust so many placed in the list.

With a few of our publishing colleagues, we rolled up our sleeves to find out how legitimate journals and their illegitimate counterparts stack up against Beall¡¯s criteria (and a few of our own). We compared a few hundred biomedical journals ¨C some from Beall¡¯s List, some taken from known legitimate sources (such as PubMed Central, Abridged Index Medicus), including open access journals. Our full study methods are available?.

We found that not all criteria were unique to so-called ¡°predatory journals¡± and that some were equally attributed to both types of journals.?

Based on our findings, we propose a list of 13 easy-to-assess ¡°red flags¡± that researchers should look for. Taken collectively, we hope that they may help researchers sniff out a potentially illegitimate publishing entity. We specifically describe what to look for when assessing each criterion.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

* Please note the following caveats:

• These recommendations are based on the methods of assessment that we used in our?
• We comment on the importance and rationale for these items, including how legitimate journals differ, in our study
• We assessed biomedical journals, but the items are likely applicable more broadly
• In our experience, illegitimate publishing entities are dynamic in nature, and these criteria may not apply perpetually to a given journal/entity
• The information that we suggest examining is not always in an obvious location, including in legitimate journals. Authors should thoroughly examine the websites of journals they are planning to submit to.?

?

?

The bottom line is this. Authors must take responsibility for the places they submit their work, in the same way that we need to pay attention to where we spend money as consumers. These illegitimate entities are not scholarly journals.

Authors and readers can arm themselves against them by examining these 13 features more closely, and in addition we encourage all authors to consider the checklist at , put forward by leaders in publication ethics and the publishing industry, when selecting a journal to submit to.

Larissa Shamseer is a PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa and a senior research associate with the Centre for Journalology at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. David Moher is a senior scientist and director of the Centre for Journalology.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ